Impeachment question

[pstans]

I have a question about impeachment. Could the House bring the measure up and just hold it above Bush's head as the trump card? If Bush doesn't let people testify then Pelosi could threaten to bring it up for a vote in the House. Right now Bush is stonewalling investigations and something has to change.

[NYCGirl]

1. It would only work as a threat if it was likely to be successful. That's what happened

re: Nixon. He knew the Republicans would vote to impeach; when the leaders of the party went up to the WH to talk to him, he knew it was over.

[WCGreen]

2. They could vote for Atricles of Impeachment in the House....

Without a super majority...

But in the Senate, where the trial is actually conducted, they have to have at least 67 of the 100 Senators to vote to Impeach...

[Diamonique]

3. That's not quite right

The Senate doesn't vote to impeach. That's done in the House. Once the House has impeached the prez, the Senate then votes on whether or not to convict.

No matter how the Senate votes (conviction or acquittal), he will still have been impeached by the House.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Correct

but he would be acquitted in the Senate, so it's not really much of a threat.

[Raven]

5. Exactly the point of the folks who don't want to pursue

impeachment.

[Robson]

6. BUT....If he is not impeached he'll never be found guilty

The current problem is we have an impasse because Bush uses "executive privilege" to prevent any of the witnesses to testify on corruption or mismanagement hearings. To my knowledge impeachment hearings would disallow the use of executive privilege to exclude testimony or witnesses. Constitutionally his power of the pardon or commuting sentences of witnesses can not be used related to impeachment.

If the House votes to impeach, Bush will be considered as impeached, and he may be convicted by the Senate if proven that he obviously committed high crimes.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Conversely

if he's not impeached, he'll never be acquitted, either.

[Robson]

10. But he will still be impeached

and.....that "impeachment" will hang over the Bush name forever even if the Senate choses not to convict.

But.....he just might be found guilty if competent prosecutors can prove his guilt. If he isn't impeached he'll most certainly never be found guilty

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Bill Clinton wasn't hurt by being impeached

in fact, he was helped by it. Republicans were hurt by the attempt.

People act as if there's no downside to impeaching and failing to convict - that is just not true. There's a big downside to failing, as is true of most things political.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Clinton wasn't hurt because the charges were LUDICROUS.

Enough with the false analogies already.

:eyes:

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Well

the charges were serious, actually. Perjury and obstruction of justice.

You don't think the republicans and their friends in the media will make a case for why charges against Bush are ludicrous, too? What actual crime will he be charged with? The NSA wiretaps? Newsflash: the republicans will swear up and down the line that the taps were used only in conversations with suspected terrorists, and most Americans will be fine with that. The argument will be that Democrats are trying to remove Bush for fighting the war on terror, and it WILL resonate with a lot of people, as ignorant as they are.

Then, when Bush is acquitted in the Senate, they'll say "see? It was all bogus, trumped-up charges."

Acquitting Bush will then make those abuses acceptable to future Presidents.

Yes, there IS a big downside to impeaching and failing to remove.

[ClassWarrior]

17. You just keep telling yourself that.

:eyes:

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Now there's a strong argument

with a emoticon, too!

The fact is, I want Bush impeached and removed. I don't want him impeached and acquitted, and that's what would happen today.

Don't think that because I question the wisdom of impeaching that I in any way support what this administration has done. I just don't want Bush MORE emboldened.

We disagree on tactics, not on the desired outcome.

[ClassWarrior]

20. So where did you purchase your crystal ball?

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. One doesn't need a crystal ball

to know that if we can't even get enough republicans to break a filibuster (60 votes) we don't have enough to remove Bush from office (67 votes).

[ClassWarrior]

24. Your entire premise is based on... the Senate "will" do this...

...and the public "would" do that. Talk about a weak arguement. You sound like frickin David Broder.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Why get so angry?

Explain why you think 18 Republicans would vote to remove him from office.

I've explained why I think they wouldn't - we can't get 11 of 'em to break a filibuster. We can't get 18 of 'em to override a veto. By extension, I believe we wouldn't get 18 of 'em to remove Bush from office.

[ClassWarrior]

32. LOL - Cute.

It doesn't matter if he's convicted. Read these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3393061&mesg_id=3393159

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072107.html

Of course I know I won't convince you, but thanks for another opportunity to get the word out to others.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. No you won't convince me

that acquitting him wouldn't be a bad thing. I think it would be awful.

[ClassWarrior]

34. And you won't convince me that refusing to stand up to thugs and tyrants...

...is a good thing. That wouldn't just be "awful." That will be the beginning of the end.

NGU.

[durtee librul]

26. Yes but the way I see that

bit with Slick Willie was this....

The repukes were on a witch hunt and most people (other than fundies of course) could have cared less.

This time around, WE DO CARE and WE WANT HIM OUT! But now we are stuck with a congress who is impotent on a good day.

To quote an overused ditty - no one died when Bill lied. The rest of the world still liked us.......

Can't say that now. THere is too much riding on us NOT at least attempting to rid us and others of the cancerous canker called Bush.

[rasputin1952]

28. He is not immune from any criminal or civil charges after he has left

office either.

I am thinking that there should be a D president and D congress, )w/#'s very high in the D side of the aisle), after the next election.

Anyone can bring charges against him, as long as they have validity in the eyes of the court initially reviewing the charges. With a D president and a D congress, I cannot fathom he would be let off the hook w/a "Blanket Pardon" or given immunity.

I don't care when he goes to prison, I just want him, cheney, and the rest of these neo-con bastards behind bars, and all of their ill gotten gain stripped from them and put into programs that would aid the poor...:evilgrin:

[pstans]

8. So could the measures be introduced and then not voted on

just to hold it over Bush's head to cooperate with Congress?

[NYCGirl]

9. But why would he cooperate if he knew it would not be successful? NT

[ClassWarrior]

11. What's your definition of "successful?"

"Still, many leading Democrats argue that impeachment would just be an exercise in futility, because conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority and because the sizable Republican minorities in Congress would stick by Bush no matter what – which may indeed be true.

"Impeachment hearings in the House, however, would at least focus the public’s attention on the severity of Bush’s offenses, demonstrate the pattern of abuse, and explain how this administration has deviated so far from the course laid out by the Founders.

"Impeachment also offers a definable – and constitutionally envisioned – response to leaders who threaten the survival of the Republic. The Founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution for exactly this kind of moment.

"Even if impeachment didn’t reach the ultimate goal of removing Bush and Cheney, it would put down a marker of congressional resistance to executive abuses.

"The public would get the point, too."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072107.html

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. That's what Republicans thought

in the 90s. They were wrong.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

25. So what do you care what Rape-Publicans think?

Hmmm?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

27. .

[ClassWarrior]

29. .

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Why mischaracterize what I said

so egregiously?

[ClassWarrior]

35. Why do you keep bringing up the failed Rape-Publican coup...

...against the Clinton Presidency as if it's in ANY way analogous?

NGU.

[NYCGirl]

18. Impeached and convicted. That's successful. NT

[ClassWarrior]

21. And this is failure?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1401077&mesg_id=1401655

NGU.

[Robson]

36. But he doesn't know that

As the experts said at the very beginning of the Iraq War when we bombed. The only thing certain with war is how it starts. The ending is always uncertain, and that has proven true unlike the promises of the neocons.

Once the articles of impeachment are voted upon there is no way Bush and others will know the ending until it is over.

I use the old golf putting adage...never up, never in. Meaning if one putts a ball that is long enough to reach the hole it will NEVER EVER go in the hole. Likewise if Congress does not have the guts to put Bush on trial for obvious high crimes he will never ever be found guilty.

IMPEACH NOW!!!!

[gulliver]

23. I think that would be an abuse of power by the House.

Impeachment is for removal from office, not compelling behavior.