ok, then, anti-impeachers: a very very simple question

[Lerkfish]

do you feel that impeachable crimes have NOT been committed?

[Mme. Defarge]

1. I can't stand

the suspense.

[Lerkfish]

3. me, too.

I will not accept any rationalizations of "not enough votes", not enough time, yadda yadda yadda.

Just my simple, basic question.

[AndyA]

2. This should be good.

:popcorn:

[Lerkfish]

4. my presumption is they will avoid this thread like toxic waste

so you might not get to eat as much popcorn as we think.

:)

[zabet]

6. Yup..look out for flame-throwers.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[GreenTea]

5. If Bush & Cheney won't honor any court ordered subpoenas, what else is left but to impeach?

The absolute arrogance, gall and disrespect for our country's laws and justice system is completely revolting...Bush & Cheney have no regard or respect for the Constitution...Bush & Cheney are laughingly & belligerently saying, they are above the law and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

We can't allow kind of outrageous actions from OUR public servants, Bush & Cheney must be impeach!

[onenote]

7. what makes someone an "anti-impeacher"

If you believe impeachable offenses have been committed and are urging your elected officials to support impeachment, but also believe that it doesn't make sense to call for a vote until it is clear that a resolution to commence an impeachment inquiry actually has some bi-partisan support, which almost certainly is a pre-requisite for obtaining enough blue dog Democratic members' support, are you "anti impeachment"? I don't think so and I think that describes a lot of DUers.

[Lerkfish]

13. valid point. I suppose if you fall into that group, I'm not addressing you.

[rateyes]

17. No, that doesn't make you anti-impeachment...but,

they didn't have the votes to impeach Nixon until toward the end of the hearings. Why not START IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS??????????????? We'll get the votes.

[onenote]

30. the vote to start the nixon impeachment hearings was 410-4

The vote to start the Clinton impeachment hearings picked up 31 Democrats.

Before there are hearings, there is a vote to authorize the hearings.

[ProudDad]

45. I believe you're incorrect

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the House rules, states that impeachment is set in motion by: charges made on the floor; charges preferred by a memorial; a Member's resolution referred to a committee; a message from the President; charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."


A MEMBER'S RESOLUTION REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE -- ONE member may initiate the process if the Committee Chair allows it to continue.

Kucinich already has begun the process against cheney -- HR 333 -- We just need someone with guts to do the same for bush the lesser...

[onenote]

78. I'm not incorrect. Did you read my post?

Cite Jefferson's manual all you want, the fact is that the actual practice has been for the impeachment process to begin with a vote by the full House on a resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an investigation and hearings. You could look it up, but I cited a source anyway:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/guide.html

Its been done that way in the past and if it continue to happen that way in the future. Indeed, every aspect of impeachment will be put under a microscope and if the process starts in a fashion that deviates from past impeachments, it would undermine the process. There would be a huge distracting debate over why a vote of the full Houses isn't being taken as was done in the past and the very legitimacy of the process would be called into question in the eyes of the public.

[truedelphi]

33. May I echo your sentiment? And your rationale for holding

Those sentiments??

[CK_John]

8. I think, I guess, I believe, seems like, but you can not produce 1 document of evidence.

Because Rove doesn't leave a cookie crumb trail. They know there are email, but can they get them. They were lucky to catch Scooter in a slip up and want became of it.

You can fuss and scream and waste time and energy all you want, but you got nada at the end of the day.

[Lerkfish]

11. not really the question

although I appreciate your points.

but you do not consider there is proof of warrantless wiretaps?
you do not consider there is proof of dereliction of duty in New Orleans?
you do not consider there is proof of outing a CIA agent?
you do not consider there is proof of refusing to honor supboenas?
you do not consider executive orders granting the unitary executive unheard of powers?

I could go on...are you saying there is no proof at all of the above?

[CK_John]

14. Yes I am, we all know they happened but there no proof whatso ever. n/t

[Lerkfish]

15. no proof of warantless wiretaps, for example? Really?

bush openly admitted it on camera, more than once.

There is proof of Gonzales writing a pro-torture treatise...that exists on paper and is viewable by anyone.

when you say "no proof whatsoever", do you really mean to say that no one will hold them to those proofs? Because, obviously, proofs do exist.

[CK_John]

21. Everything you stated can be passed off on a staffer, there is nothing

you can produce that ties * to any of these actions. If there were, we would be watching it on TV(maybe).

[Lerkfish]

23. not really sure you're actually reading my posts.

did you miss the part about Bush, openly admitting on camera to warrantless wiretapping?

[CK_John]

34. He said, it was possible someone was doing that, but catch me if you can. n/t

[Lerkfish]

37. your memory of events and mine do not coincide.

I'll leave it at that.

[Phredicles]

64. "We know they happened but there is no proof????" - Excuse me, sir, but

I think you just broke my brain.:crazy:

[Phredicles]

66. EDIT: D'oh - see? I misplaced where to respond to the original post.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. There are literally hours of video

proving almost every single impeachable offense.

[bobbolink]

52. Interestingly, Conyers had all the papers drawn up, and considered them

provable, before the '06 election.

What I'd like to know is....

HOW WAS CONYERS MUZZLED????

[rateyes]

19. Nixon was impeached for

asserting executive privilege when he shouldn't have. And, as far as documents are concerned:

Ever heard of the UN Charter? It's part of the supreme law of our land, being the mother of all treaties.

We KNOW Bush ignored that treaty when he took us to war. We've also got more than enough to impeach Gonzo and Cheney right now.

You don't get more evidence until you start taking depositions. Time to start.

[CK_John]

22. Nixon was NOT impeached, but informed that there were at least 68 votes in the Sen to do. n/t

[Lerkfish]

25. Did he remain in office?

Did he have a vote total BEFORE impeachment proceedings, or after?

[CK_John]

32. They had audio tapes and witnesses(documents), and he wanted to save his pension. n/t

[Lerkfish]

36. so, the threats of impeachment were very effective, then.

thanks for proving my point, albeit inadvertantly.

:rofl:

[CK_John]

39. The 68 votes in the Senate(72 admitted they vote), get at least 61 and you may have a chance. n/t

[ellisonz]

75. You win.

[rateyes]

68. The hearings took place, and the impeachment was

assured. He had the decency to resign.

[Swamp Rat]

44. I got your fucking evidence RIGHT HERE, Jack:

Oh, and by the way, the fact that Bushler LET PLANES FLY INTO THE WTC, is also sufficient evidence. Remember, he got a memo SPECIFICALLY WARNING HIM in August 2001.

[bobbolink]

59. The horror of those pictures remains.

Well, except for those who still don't want to understand what poverty is.

[NancyBreen]

71. Thank you Swamp Rat

You so succinctly have stated the obvious.

:toast:

[butterfly77]

9. IMPEACH!

[zulchzulu]

10. Do you have a Magic Vote Machine to share with all of us...

Perhaps some psych-ops tools that can change enough minds in Congress to vote for impeachment...

[Lerkfish]

12. I wish, but that's not the question.

do you believe impeachable offenses were NOT committed?

[zulchzulu]

20. I wrote and produced a song...my opinion is there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3chpy0CWyI8

[Lerkfish]

28. thanks, nice video

[pberq]

46. the number of votes at this moment is not important!

Whether the votes are there or not, Conyers, Pelosi, et. al. are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution if they do not begin the impeachment process.

[Lerkfish]

16. thanks for the recc's

apparently, I've asked them a question they deign not to answer.

[rateyes]

18. K & R

:kick:

[galileo3000]

24. A humble poster's comment.

I suspect you would find few among us who would be willing to suffer more than mental anguish for this cause (I know that I am not). We make speeches, carry signs, write LTTEs, attend concerts, hand out pamphlets, even make movies (stuff I would be doing anyway). A few have the courage to get themselves arrested, but so far I have not seen anything approaching the sacrifice required to garner the respect of the minds we are hoping to change toward peace.

I am not a brave man, but I was watching the Civil Rights March on You-Tube today
I have a dream
and after watching this, I was ready to face the firehoses, beatings, dogs, or worse. But for impeachment, in my heart I don't have much I would sacrifice.

I think that our cause has no spiritual core (nothing that appeals to mans better nature). It is my opinion that without a spiritual core, our movement is a ship without direction. The bitterness and hatred we so readily call upon does nothing to bolster our numbers. Rather, it merely mobilizes the worst among us to acts of anger which deafen our purpose for peace. That is probably why the politicians choose to not pay heed.

It is my suspicion that the quest for impeachment is merely a swipe at the branches, and does not go after the roots of the problem.

"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." - Martin Luther King, Jr (from the aforementioned speech).

Peace, and Courage to all my brothers and sisters.
- galileo

[Lerkfish]

27. prettily said, but does not answer the question.

Do you feel that impeachable offenses have NOT been committed?

[galileo3000]

35. So far I am still against it.

But I have not posted as much as you, so I may have much more to learn. I'm also a bit of an idealist, which may be naive. But I believe the concept of democrat allows for "naive idealism" to have a voice
as well.

I just don't fear this administration. I'm sure peace is right and I'm sure that we will get there.

My respect to you for challenging me to be straightforward with my thoughts (it is a test of my courage to say such things especially in this forum).

[Lerkfish]

38. and yet, the question is not quite answered.

do you feel that impeachable offenses have NOT occurred?

that is a different question from whether you feel impeachment should or would be pursued.

[galileo3000]

48. Not a slippery eel. - just focused wrong. - Yes I'm not convinced.

Sorry about that. What makes this medium so interesting is how it heuristicly forces precise language. Perhaps we are already doomed to be a nation of bureaucrats. If nothing else you may easily dismiss me as someone who ignores the details.

So lets make it crystal clear to at least show you that I am not resorting to just rhetorical tricks.
Do I feel that impeachable offenses have not occured? (strange construction)

Yes, I am not convinced that impeachable offenses have occured.

[Lerkfish]

54. Thank you for your candor

now, if you feel impeachable offenses have not occurred, what offenses would you consider impeachable? Please be specific.

[galileo3000]

62. Let me pray about it.

Every forum I have tried to participate in at DU has felt a little like playing with loaded gun. I try to be brave and cautious, respectful, honest, considerate, forthright, and then I still get my head blown up. Maybe I wasn't meant for politics.

[AntiFascist]

58. There you have it...

I think that deep down, no matter how much we try to spell things out, many non-impeach people are not convinced that impeachable offenses occured. This is more of an emotional conclusion than a logical one, one that relates to Pelosi's comment that "Bush is a lovely man, from a good family, a patriotic family." The good Germans loved their fuhrer.

[LibertyorDeath]

65. Oh my did she really say that?

Did she seem genuine.

She's either ignorant or a liar

Her observations about the bush and his family are categorically false.

The bush family history is traitorous and disgraceful.

"Pelosi's comment that "Bush is a lovely man, from a good family, a patriotic family."

[AntiFascist]

69. One would hope she was being sarcastic...

but apparently it was in this interview with Charlie Rose:

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/articles?id=0051

it was in the context of Bush being oblivious to what's going on around him.

I wonder how she really feels about Cheney?

[LibertyorDeath]

73. Thanks AntiFascist

Much appreciated !...

[Usrename]

26. Treason, bribery, I think those are impeachable.

:kick:

[Zodiak]

29. Oh they've been committed alright

I would imagine we can pin at least 4 or 5 high crimes and misdemeanors on him based on the evidence lying around us. He cannot shore up all information fronts without asserting so much executive priveledge that he will have to barracade himself behind sandbags in the WH to avoid the U.S. Marshalls.

I find it positively laughable that even though the man had admitted to crimes in the public square that we feel that there is not enough evidence to impeach or we cannot get our hands on it. Bullshit.

Even if we cannot convict, we can frog-march witness after witness after witness. At least put these bastards on the defensive. We emboldened them with our recent capitulations, and as I and many others predicted, he is going full-guns, now.

[Lerkfish]

31. amen! wish I could reccomend this post!

[bmbmd]

40. The key word is "crimes".

Impeachment would jeopardize the likelihood of thorough investigation, trial, conviction, and incarceration. I say hamstring the administration with censure, then elect a super majority in both house and senate, with a democratic president, and steer the bastards through criminal court. With impeachment, he will retire to Paraguay and continue to run his criminal empire worth billions. Impeachment is too good(vis a vis what happened to Nixon) for this crowd-prison is what they deserve.

[Thothmes]

89. "crimes"

Impeachment and subsequent conviction in no way prevents criminal prosecution once they are removed from office. If they were impeached, convicted and removed from office, felony court action could start the next day.

[bmbmd]

90. Just like Nixon was tried after his looming impeachment.

They would strike a deal for resignation in exchange for no criminal undertaking, and would remove themselves to Paraguay with billions of dollars and a private mercenary army already in place. that's why I don't like it.

[pberq]

47. "We emboldened them with our recent capitulations"

Yes - exactly!

And they will continue to be emboldened if someone in a position to do so does not stand up to them.

[knight_of_the_star]

41. No I do not, but I also know there will be no conviction

I don't want to run this guy up before the Senate and watch him get away with all that he has done by being acquitted by the Senate thanks to the GOP. If you can show me we'll have the 68 votes we need, that's another matter, but until then we do not have an effective means of recourse at this time.

[ClassWarrior]

43. Thank you Kreskin!

He'll be here all week. Tip your waitstaff.

NGU.

[pberq]

49. You "know" there will be no conviction? How do you know that?

In any case, if they don't proceed with impeachment, we have lost our democracy. Bush has declared dictatorial powers.

[smiley_glad_hands]

42. Go protest the moderate repugs. eom

[Lerkfish]

50. funny, that doesn't answer the question: do you feel impeachable offenses have occured?

and I"m not protesting, I"m asking a very, very simple basic, straitforward question.

[smiley_glad_hands]

51. Of course I do.

But you need to change the moderate repugs minds, not mine, JC, or NP.

[Lerkfish]

53. the scope of this thread is extremely narrow.

it contains a very simple question.

which you had the balls to answer, thanks.


Now, once the answer is "yes", then we need to sweep away all the detrius and get to the basic conclusions.

Have crimes been committed? Yes.

Next question: Should the criminals be charged or given a free pass?

[smiley_glad_hands]

55. And if you want it to happen

go protest the moderate repugs.

[ClassWarrior]

56. That's an odd phrasing, but you're right...

Convincing the moderate (R) Senators is key.

NGU.

[AntiFascist]

60. The best way to convince moderate repugs may be to go forward with proceedings

Chicken and egg.

[dsc]

57. The analogy I would use is trying a complex case too fast

I just don't think we have an ability to even win in the House. We certainly don't in the Senate. The last thing we need to have is a failed Impeachment. If we try and lose, that would be the worst precedent we could set.

[Lerkfish]

61. and if we did nothing, and the crimes become worse????

how will history view us?

[dsc]

63. then Impeach then

One good example of this, for those who think OJ was guilty, was the OJ case. The prosecution arrested OJ way too fast and as a consequence had to prosecute way too fast. Had they slowed down and taken their time they likely would have won that case. Instead their best evidence didn't even surface until the civil case. Impeachment now might not even win in the House. I don't see Shuler voting for it, and doubt Ethridge would either.

[Lerkfish]

72. how much time would be required to be "slow enough"?

The bush administration will march onto Iran and dictatorship in the meantime.

[dsc]

79. to refer back to my example

I bet Marcia Clark would love to have had the photos of the shoes. This isn't a matter of time frame it is a matter of evidence. The investigation was completed in Clinton's case and mostly completed in Nixon's. Here there has been virtually no investigory work done due to a lack of independent council. Given that it took Starr about 2 years and Cox about the same amount of time I admittedly don't hold out a lot of hope but we might get lucky and have someone confess or find tapes.

[Lerkfish]

81. "we might get lucky"

yeah, that's worked out so well for us so far. Keeping our powder dry has really prevented crimes.

[Phredicles]

67. Thanks for posing the question, Lerkfish; I find it especially striking

that the only negative answers have been truly mind-bending.

Otherwise, we all know what the truth is here. And if we as a country let this crowd walk without even a trial, it will be a case of Kitty Genovese to the 100th power.

[Maraya1969]

74. I wish you would send that question to Nancy Pelosi

[ellisonz]

76. I believe they have been committed...

However, you still need 67 votes to convict. So what's the fricking point? To make people aware of his crimes? Puhlease, have you seen the polls?

:eyes:

[mitchtv]

77. I support impeachment, but

I do not support attacks trashing Dems who disagree. We need to go after Pukes. That's why you will see me in these dump Palosi type threads. Not because I am against Chimpeachment, cause I think targeting Dems is very short sighted indeed. I guess sitting here in a very red district, it just irks me to see my Puke rep skating while liberal dems take the venom.

[Lerkfish]

82. that's a different issue.

the issue in this thread is why people oppose impeachment, independent of their feelings on certain people pushing for it.

[Perry Logan]

80. The behavior of the pro-impeachers has greatly weakened my support for impeachment.

If impeachment succeeds, it won't be because of you guys.

[Lerkfish]

83. from my very simple question, you judge bad behavior? can you be more specific?

I would also point out that impeachment WILL NEVER OCCUR because of you guys.

kind of a logic thing, eh?

[TheBaldyMan]

85. Stone me! an ad hominem attack on a whole group, how feeble. n/t

[Dawgs]

84. Stupid Question!!!

[TheBaldyMan]

86. What is so stupid about the question exactly?

Please explain it in simple, clear terms.

[Lerkfish]

88. what is stupid about the question? I'll be happy to lay it out for you logically.

Q: Do you believe impeachable offense have NOT occurred?
A: No, I don't believe they have, and that is why I oppose impeachment

or


Q: Do you believe impeachable offense have NOT occurred?
A: Yes,but I still oppose impeachment.


If the first, we can discuss why you don't believe such offenses have occurred, we can discuss what one would consider "impeachable" or the nature of various known and provable or unprovable acts.

If the second, we can discuss why one can agree crimes have been committed, but disagree with charging the criminals. There can be a variety of reasons that can be discussed.

[On the Road]

87. No. They Have Been Committed