Where is the outrage?

[realbluesky]

Can anyone say the bush administration is "not" guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?
With so much evidence, we don't need more investigations, we need action.

I am completely appalled by those who say we should not impeach because we don't have the votes.

That's the problem with the democratic party, they are too concerned about votes rather than doing the right thing.

Democrats must bring impeachment for both bush and cheney. They must tell the world that what the bush administration is doing in the name of America is not right. Let the republicans vote against it and go on record to say that what bush and cheney are doing is okay with them.

Democrats will never gain any respect in the world if they don't take a stand. Impeachment is the most important political idea of the era. This is not an option, it is a duty. It must be done.

It's time to stand up and speak out. Write your representatives. If you do not support impeachment, you are basically saying that what bush and cheney have done and are doing is okay.

[mike_c]

1. yup-- agreed, 100 percent....

Rec'd.

[AlCzervik]

2. Gee where have you been? Yes no one here supports impeachment and no one

has been writing congress or protesting, thanks so much for recalibrating us.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. LOL

First I've heard of it!

[realbluesky]

6. Interesting

Why is it then that I see so much here on DU that there is no support for impeachment?
If, as you indicate in your sarcasm, a large segment of the democratic party supports impeachment, why aren't our elected representatives listening.

Where have I been? I've been right here. I've been waiting for a movement. I've been waiting for the dems to do the right thing and bring impeachment charges against some of the worst criminals in this nation's history.

[AlCzervik]

7. there is plenty of support for impeachment here and many of us have spent

lots of time writing, calling and protesting and generally tearing our hair out with frustration over this issue.

[realbluesky]

8. So is the sarcasm helpful to your cause?

I have no doubt that we're on the same page on this issue.
But if there is "plenty" of support, why do the majority of posters that I have read say there is not enough support?
If there is plenty of support, why are our reps not listening?
Should I just shut up because you think there is plenty of support already and we don't need any more?

[AlCzervik]

14. your implication is that we aren't doing enough, "the majority of posters"

and i say you are incorrect, there are over 100,000 people that are registered here and if you did a poll i believe you will find overwhelming support for Bush and Cheney being tossed out on their collective asses. No you shouldn't shut up but maybe you should stop painting "The majority of posters" with that broad brush and understand how much time, energy and money Du'ers spend to try and get elected Representatives to listen and act.

[realbluesky]

21. That was not my intent

That was a bad choice of words and I, too, hate it when people do paint with the "broad" brush.
I cannot devote a great deal of my time on this site because of other obligations, but what I have read led me to believe the majority of posters did not support impeachment.

I guess the question would then be, why aren't our representatives representing us?
What more do we need to do to get their attention?

[AlCzervik]

23. i wish i knew why, we are all frustrated as hell over this whole administration

taking this country and the Constitution apart day by day, it will take decades to undo all that damage that Bush has done. I didn't mean to go off on you but we really try here, so many good democrats working really hard to effect change.

[robinlynne]

9. come on chimp. give the new guy/gal a break.

[robinlynne]

11. and love to the guinea pig!

[realbluesky]

12. Now that's what I call support

Thanks, and it's guy

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. K & R. nt.

[Totally Committed]

4. Great rant!

K & R

TC

[MADem]

10. How do we obtain a conviction without a couple of things?

1. Evidence--you need to hold HEARINGS to get evidence. We don't have any EVIDENCE yet. We have suppositions, and they are probably based in truth, but "probably" doesn't cut it when you're talking Rule of Law--unless you're a Republican, that is.

2. Those pesky votes--without them, you aren't going to get your conviction. Keep in mind you need two thirds of the Senate. How do we get there? Maybe putting a little EVIDENCE out there might change a few minds...but we don't have any evidence, yet, anyway.

It is important to recognize that "Illegal war" isn't evidence. The Congress gave Bush permission to prosecute that war. And if we think he broke a law, well, it's probably a good idea to check and see if he attached one of his famous "signing statements" to any laws he signed--because those could be a handy factor in mitigation for him. The guy may be a bastard, but his legal team isn't stupid. They've been careful to keep him WELL insulated.

I don't think there are many people here who wouldn't LIKE to see Bush or Cheney impeached. It's simply a question of getting there, and I've yet to see any approaches that go beyond anger. If you write your reps, you need to ask them to hold hearings on specific issues--issues that might turn up those high crimes and misdemeanors. That's the only way we're going to get that evidence. We haven't done that yet. It would be nice if we could get that party started. Keep in mind, if a toady commits a crime, that's NOT the same as Bush or Cheney so doing, unless that toady says "He TOLD ME to do it!" You've got to pull the string and find it leads all the way to the Oval Office in order to impeach.

Without evidence linking Bush to a crime, you can't impeach. Democrats don't shoot first and ask questions later--that's what the GOP does. We need to start with Step 1--Investigatory hearings.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. For what its worth, there is no evidentiary standard with respect to impeachment

You can impeach for a bad haircut.

[Totally Committed]

17. That's totally true.

With Clinton, they started with an infidelity and kept hammering him and questioning him until they forced him to lie, and then they impeached him for that.

I say, conviction or not, make them regret life, bigtime, for the time they have left.

TC

[MADem]

24. Or a blowjob--but you can't get a conviction. And the people who push a BS impeachment

that doesn't meet the evidentiary test end up looking like assholes who play bullshit political games 'while our nation is at war.' It will end up as a double-whammy to our detriment, making Newt's missteps vis a vis Clinton look like nothing of consequence.

And the person who is impeached, and not convicted, is viewed as a political martyr. I don't want Bush enjoying that kind of legacy.

[realbluesky]

27. Not true

Andrew Johnson was not considered a martyr.

Bill Clinton was not considered a martyr. It was obvious that his impeachment was a crock, but in many circles, people believed he brought his problems upon himself because of his own stupid actions.
I am not a part of that circle.

Anyway, not impeaching is saying to the world that what bush has done and is doing is quite okay with us.

[MADem]

30. I'm not going through this shit again. Your mileage obviously varies.

Bill Clinton was polling at seventy percent plus when he was impeached. That's because people looked at him and said, they're fucking that guy--he's a political MARTYR. So thirty percent didn't feel that way--BFD!!

And as for Johnson, he wasn't convicted either, even though they tried to take TWO bites at him. And I submit he was considered a martyr contemporaneous with the attempts to impeach him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson The short version:

Before 1960 most historians held the impeachment of Andrew Johnson as a violation of American values regarding division of powers and fair play. Had Johnson been successfully removed from office, he would have been replaced with Radical Republican Benjamin Wade, making the presidency and Congress somewhat uniform in ideology, although in many ways Wade was more "radical" than the Republicans in Congress. This would have established a precedent that a President could be removed not for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but for purely political differences.

[ProudDad]

39. And had that rascist Johnson been removed

Jim Crow may not have happened.

Tough to say...

[MADem]

41. Certainly true--but back then, the contemporaneous view was that the process had been

politicized and the man was treated unfairly. It took almost a Century before a more nuanced view came to the fore.

[ProudDad]

42. True, too true

I remember in history class in H.S. what a big deal was made of the one Senator from Rhode Island who voted against removal. I seem to remember that same Senator was included in JFK's book "Profiles in Courage".

It wasn't until decades later that I learned the truth about Johnson...

[jwirr]

15. Thank you for your level head. They have been very careful to

keep the prez out of it all. What we need is a John Dean for today.

[MADem]

25. Ironically, his DEPUTY, Fred Fielding, is in Dean's job now.

I suspect he was hired because he saw how the Nixon White House screwed up, and he has the experience to close loops and plug leaks. It's a pretty tight ship over there, so far.

We need someone to punch a hole in the hull. Who knows--maybe that someone is Harriet Miers? Why else would Bush want to put a genuine, grade-A fucking MORON on the bench of the highest court in the land? The only reason I can think of is to BUY HER SILENCE....like he's bought Gonzalez's, with a promise that he'll NEVER abandon him.

It's why Alberto smirks when testifying--he knows he's safe, that 'Da Boss' will protect him, just as he covered for 'Da Boss,' so long ago, back in TX.

[realbluesky]

18. It doesn't matter

It doesn't matter whether or not we have the votes for a conviction. What matters is that the dems take a stand and tell the world what is happening is not right.

There is more evidence than is necessary to bring impeachment. This isn't about winning the battle, it's about doing the right thing. If dems are so intimidated that they are paralyzed, then they are completely ineffective.

Bring it to a vote and let the republicans go down in history as voting against impeachment and saying to the world that what bush and cheney have done is okay.

What bush and cheney have done they have done in the name of America. America needs to stand up and say THIS IS NOT RIGHT!

[MADem]

22. Well, I submit that it DOES matter. Democrats don't haul people up without EVIDENCE

Even if they are assholes that we despise.

Republicans pull that shit. They shoot first, ask questions later. Your "vote without evidence" will ensure that this Congress is a laughingstock. And that's why it won't happen the way you envision it, if at all.

There is NOT "more evidence than is necessary to bring impeachment." If there were, impeachment would be happening. You need to review the meaning of the term--it isn't opinion, it isn't what people think, it isn't assumptions. There is no (legal definition of the term) EVIDENCE to impeach either Bush or Cheney--yet. There's NO EVIDENCE that tracks any of the bullshit that has happened and been revealed (Gonzalez, Libby, e.g.) to the President or VP. There just ISN'T. That's what HEARINGS might reveal.

You can't "bring it to a vote"--really, bring WHAT to a vote?--without holding hearings, gathering evidence, preparing Articles of Impeachment, voting them out of the House, delivering them to the Senate, and THEN...only THEN...do you have a trial--after Senate Committees do a little sumpthin-sumpthin to streamline the process of what is actually brought UP at trial.

It's a LONG process, and it helps to understand it. We haven't even seen any significant hearings to move the impeachment ball forward in the House yet.

So, I ask you--bring WHAT to a vote? Where are the Articles of Impeachment? Where are the hearings that produce them? If we ask for anything, we should ask for hearings--more of them, early and often. That would suggest that the electorate has a handle on the actual PROCESS of impeachment, and might motivate the House to start the process, and the Senate to pay attention to it as it unfolds.

[realbluesky]

28. Sorry, friend, but I don't know what planet you are from

You can make all the excuses you want for the lack of action by the dems, but that doesn't change the fact that the dems have a duty to bring charges of impeachment.
They have a duty to do so because they were elected to do the job required of them, and bringing impeachment charges against this bunch of criminals is their job.

The things you say you can't do, you can do.
You talk about a long process, it is not.
We do not need more hearings. America is getting tired of hearings. Americans are getting bored with hearings.

If the dems don't take a stand now, they face the possibility of losing not only the upcoming elections, but also of a third party getting a foothold.

[MADem]

31. I'm from the planet EARTH, and I deal in reality, not fantasy.

I'm not making excuses, I'm explaining the PROCESS to someone who plainly doesn't understand it.

Ok, now tell us, since we don't need any evidence, according to you, to make a case, just how this impeachment of yours is going to go down. I really want to know just how this is going to flow--I'd really like you to put your thoughts on record here, for all to see.

Enough with the generalizations, the "Democrats must take a stand" bullshit, you tell us all, for our edification, since you seem to know so much and can make snarky comments about my planetary origins, precisely how you see the process unfolding. What Articles of Impeachment will be sent to the Senate? What will they say?

Come on, now--comments like "America is getting bored with hearings" and "bringing charges is their job" doesn't bring those Articles to life, now, does it? You tell me, step by step, how those Impeachment Articles are going to be created, and what they are going to say when they are delivered to the Senate. I'd also really like to know who is going to vote this out--you might want to tell us which Blue Dogs will go along for the ride, along with any Republicans who will step in where a conservative Democrat shies away. We'll need a Yea and Nay count, certainly.

I really want to know your thought process on this, as do, I wager, others.

[realbluesky]

33. Your defense of timidity is sad

I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to your ignorant comments with information that is available to all who wish to see it.
Bottom line is you agree with the politicians who are too afraid stand up to the moron in chief.
Hearings will do nothing.
You wish to ridicule my comments, but you cannot change their truth.

You wish the democrats to do nothing (more hearings is doing nothing). To stand by and let the criminals go scot free. The whole world can see the timidity and lack of backbone.

[MADem]

37. Ahhh,,,,you have neither the TIME nor the INCLINATION, eh???

:rofl:

But you sure have the time to run round this thread insulting me by suggesting I'm "fearful" and "timid," now, don't you? Your presumptions are false, but never mind that.


I'm calling you out. You had time AND inclination just now to post seven sentences of horseshit, going straight to your "bottom line" but not telling us how we get there, and calling my request for justification of your assertions "ignorant"--sorry, you don't get away with that. If it's so damned ignorant a question, you shouldn't have any trouble answering it.

Come on. One more chance. Answer the question I asked. It's a simple one. Walk us through what you want the Congress, the ones you are accusing of being do-nothings, to do. That's not "ridicule," my asking you that basic question--I want you to explain yourself. What would you have the Congress do? Telll us how the process moves forward in your mind. Tell us what the Articles of Impeachment are to be.

If you feel foolish, and by your latest response, I'm guessing that is a fair assumption, that's on you--perhaps you can't answer the question, and that's why you've gone on the "Oooh, you're fearful!!!" attack? Could that be it? I ask you a reasonable question--how will the process work--and that's your non-answer???

Put up, or show yourself to be a grandstanding fellow (at a minimum) who really doesn't know the subject matter, but simply likes to make broadbrushed pronouncements and then denigrate those who call him on the details (or lack thereof) of his assertions.

[jwirr]

43. All the impeachment is is a hearing. A search for evidence that can

lead to an indictment. Why can't you see that? Where you there when they impeached Nixon? If you were you would know that it is a long process of hearings.

[jwirr]

26. Aren't we doing that by having all these hearings? The problem is

that the MSM is telling only what it wants the people to know. I watched all the Watergate hearings and all the Iran/Contra hearings and I do not see that there is a difference. One was used for impeachment and ended with a resignation, the other for finding out what regun was up to behind the scenes: both told us what was happening.

[realbluesky]

29. That's the problem with hearings

Hearings can go on and on without end.
We need to take action. To bring impeachment charges.
Maybe it will force resignation, maybe it won't.
But at least the dems will not go down in history as standing by and doing nothing while the criminals run free.

[MADem]

32. The real problem is BushCo continually stonewalling; making those pesky Executive Privilege claims

And you know full well if that shit goes to the Supremes, they're gonna rule in favor of BushCo. And if they do that, well, there's NO evidence. Ever. Bush will have shut 'We, the People' out totally.

That's part of the reason why Congress is treading VERY carefully--if the Supremes rule that the President doesn't have to tell Congress shit, ever, then that's become a part of our national poltical process, if not forever, for a LONG, LONG time. We don't want to get into that territory, where we end up electing Presidents who are essentially secretive emperors answering to no one for four years. Congress, wisely, wants to try to stay AWAY from asking the Supremes for any help, or motivating Porgie and Company to going there themselves to forestall Congress asking any of those annoying questions. That's why they're behaving ponderously--because they can see down the road to what will happen if the Supremes get dragged into this mix preemptively.

Back in the Watergate era, there were those tapes. And Nixon said that we couldn't hear them -- "for national security reasons" of course. But Judge Sirica called 'Bullshit' and said we could hear them. Of course, Nixon appealed immediately, and the result was the same--the appeals court said Hand 'em OVER! But then, Nixon still stonewalled, he did the "Cox sacking" (Archibald Cox--the Special Prosecutor--who ended up being fired by Robert Bork, after Elliot Richardson and Wm. Ruckleshaus refused to do it) and the shit really hit the fan. Everyone (myself included) had an "Impeach the Cox Sacker" bumper sticker at this point. Then Nixon shoved Jaworski into Cox's job, and (after Nixon or one of his underlings erased the damning eighteen and a half minutes), he suddenly decided to comply with the subpoena and hand over those tapes.

I sense that Bush doesn't intend to comply with any subpoenas. Ever. At all. He's gonna stonewall, and count on the Supreme Court as his ultimate backstop. So the Congress has to find someone who will sing, or someone who will drag a server full of emails to the House Judiciary Committee, or something that serves as a BushCo Smoking Gun.

You're never going to get anything from the MSM, the only hope for us at all is CSPAN. And of course, if you don't have CSPAN 3, like most of us don't, you have to wait up till three in the morning or set the recorder to see a House Judiciary hearing that happens while the House is in session, because they won't cut away to the "good stuff" even if nothing of consequence is happening on the floor.

[realbluesky]

34. Be afraid, be very afraid

Don't do anything because of how someone else might not support it.

[MADem]

35. Well, that comment pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.

You lack understanding of the process, and in response tyou insult people by insinuating that they are somehow "fearful" because they actually DO understand it.

What you're doing is called "baiting." It's not very nice. Have you bothered to read the DU rules, BTW?

[realbluesky]

36. I do apologize if I have insulted you

But you saying that I do not understand the process is insulting in and of itself.
I have a very good understanding of the process and I believe you are mistaken.
To say that the dems have to wait until all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted until they do anything is just making an excuse.
The repubs have used fear for far too long and the dems are succumbing to that fear by not proceeding to impeachment.
It is my opinion that this is not the complicated matter you are making it out to be.

[MADem]

38. Look, I am not going to let my question pass. It was a reasonable one.

You responded with uncalled-for rudeness and false assertions about my character.

I ask you a simple and direct question--HOW? I want to know what you expect them to do. It isn't a 'simple process,' a question of Pelosi standing there with a bullwhip and ordering everyone in her caucus to vote YEA--like that would work, anyway! To be precise, and clear, it would NOT work.

Enough with the T crossing and I dotting. Having EVIDENCE of a crime isn't a penmanship exercise. You don't drag someone through an impeachment process without a damned good idea that you can prove wrongdoing--unless you are a Republican.

You need to explain how you move the Blue Dogs over to that YEA column, and fill in the blanks with GOP where the conservative Democrats don't cooperate. You need charges--Articles of Impeachment. What are they? What gets written down and sent over to the Senate? What do you accuse Bush or Cheney of doing? Illegal war? Ooops, Congress signed off on that one. Torture, illegal imprisonment? Check those signing statements to the Patriot Act and other national security legislation first for mitigating commentary to make the illegal legal.

BushCo aren't stupid. Look at Gonzalez's smirking testimony. He knows he's covered, so long as he stonewalls. Look at the serene Scooter Libby--he knew from Day One his commutation was assured, and I'll wager any sum his full pardon is in the bag too after the 08 elections.

Unless you find a trail that leads from a misconduct, a high crime, a misdemeanor, all the way to the Oval Office, you aren't going to get a majority to vote in favor of impeachment. I'm not a fan of worthless, symbolic, failed votes to make lame points. If we do this, we need to do it successfully, or not at all.

My question as to HOW we do it is in order. It's germane to the entire impeachment process. And I've yet to hear anyone who's angry, and demanding impeachment, tell me precisely HOW we get from ranting, fist-shaking, whining and insulting our own caucus to a vote that passes, with prepared Articles sent to the Senate. No one seems able to do it. No one will even articulate charges that will withstand even the lamest scrutiny.

We can't get a vote to impeach Bush just for being an asshole--it's a valid charge, but it won't fly.

[Nite Owl]

16. I get the feeling that most of us here

on DU would want impeachment. We aren't the ones in congress though, those dems are another story. They seem totally disconnected from reality and consider people like us, you know the ones who work to get them elected, the ones who contribute more than than can, the ones who read, sort of nuisance. Keep writing to them, calling them, annoying them and most of all talk to other people who are not yet convinced and get try to let them see the light. Maybe if they start calling they will actually listen because I don't think we count at all anymore.

Last night on Abrams show (MSNBC) he had David Boise (sp?)on and Elizabeth Holtzman. Boise was Gore's lawyer in the '00 fiasco. He was against impeachment and she was for it. He actually said that no crimes have been committed! This is what we are dealing with, this is what the dems in congress hear and unfortunately listen to.

[jwirr]

44. Crimes have been committed but do we have the evidence that it

was *ss who committed them. I looks to me that there are plenty of toadies like gonzo who are willing to lay in front of the steam roller to save their boss. The evidence has to point directly at the one being impeached in order to get an indictment to send to the Senate.

[onenote]

19. your question answers itself

Where is the outrage? Well, apart from pockets of outrage expressed here on DU and on other websites, it doesn't exist. It certainly is clear that a wide swath of the population isn't outraged enough by either chimpy's acts or the inaction of Congress to start an impeachment proceeding to rise up and voice their outrage in any significant way. WHich may explain why Congress, noting the absence of outrage in the country, feels no compulsion to start the impeachment process.

[sharp_stick]

20. I want them convicted, not just impeached

I don't care if it takes time either, just impeaching these two isn't good enough. Investigations telling the country all about the myriad crimes of this administration are just as effective as a congressional impeachment hearing IMO.

If it gets to the Senate and they are acquitted by their repuke cronies, as I'm pretty sure they would be, they skate and can claim forever that they were never convicted. That just isn't enough. I'd like to see them do time and a lot of it but I don't dare hope that something like that would ever happen to the rich and powerful in this country in my lifetime.

[Perry Logan]

40. Everytime I try to express the outrage, people freak out.

So the outrage is hiding.

[illinoisprogressive]

45. People are getting hit with a new outrage everyday. it's called shell shock.

People don't have time to mull things over and get outraged because everyday there is a new despicable thing uncovered.
They will have a delay outrage sometime. but, now, it is just too much to soak in and be pissed off enough to do something.