Why I think impeachment is off the table

[Zorro]

Like most of us, I would love to see Little Boots impeached, convicted, and thrown into prison (along with the rest of his criminal administration) for his gross abuse of power and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

However, I've had a recent epiphany regarding the possibility of this outcome, and have come to the unfortunate conclusion that it is all wishful thinking for a couple of reasons.

1. In order for an impeachment effort to have any chance of success, it would have to originate from within the Republican Party and then get a substantial number of them to vote for it. Since the Republicans in Congress are a cult of morally corrupt and ethically compromised Stalinists, they will continue to place party over country in every venue and at every opportunity. They may be morally and ethically compromised, but they aren't about to compromise their absolute commitment to the party, no matter how far astray current policies are from its core principles.

2. Consider Little Boots' personal history and the nature of his personality --- he has consistently evaded responsibility throughout his whole life. Even if he faced a serious threat of impeachment, all he would do is resign for health reasons, because he won't wait around to face the music. It would be his great big parting "fuck you" to the American people, and I have little doubt that he would do something like that, because he's already demonstrated his contempt for the citizens he was elected to serve and the Constitution he swore to uphold. And then we'd get Darth and have to start the cycle all over again to impeach his sorry ass while Congress worked on identifying an acceptable VP, and things will be even more fucked up for the remainder of this administration's term.

So that's why I'm coming around to seeing impeachment as an exercise in futility. No one deserves it more than Little Boots and this pack of criminals, but just looking at it from a Realpolitik perspective I think it would end up being wasted energy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. If starting impeachment procedures would make him resign

that would be worth it, imho. Also it would send an important message to future presidents--trashing the Constitution has its consequences.

[Zorro]

6. As Conyers said, then we'd get Cheney

And Cheney would whip out his pardon pen to for Little Boots.

They've already shown they have no regard for the Constitution, and they'll not hesitate to create a number of Constitutional crises until their time is up.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

8. Exactly . . .

We're all so wrapped up in TODAY that the long term seems of much less importance, but we absolutely must keep a mind to what this country may become.

Actually, I like to think of what it could become.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. One question:

Which party is in the majority?

[azurnoir]

5. Democrats are

however it is not enough of a majority, while a simple majority would get though the House, it takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate that's 67, we do not have it.
Then there is the problem that unlike Watergate there is no *in legal terms) concrete crime, no one incident. Watergate started as a burglary we do not have that, the crimes here fall in to the "it's one thing to know and another to show" category

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

[mzmolly]

9. Right, and I think Conyers is attempting to "get there."

But we're just not there yet.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. The evidence is there

Conyers has it. But the Dems have taken impeachment off the table.

Yes getting republicans on board is a great idea. But Democrats need to start the process. So while I am lobbying republicans, (not hard, I live in red state hell), I am putting more pressure on Democrats to get the ball rolling. We are running out of time. It will be too late before too long.

[miceelf]

21. none

there is no majority in the senate.

[Mme. Defarge]

3. Appeasement ...

Where have I heard that argument before?

[AndyA]

4. What you are forgetting or overlooking is the GOP's penchant to eat their own when necessary.

There are a lot of Republican seats up in 2008, and they are not going to go down for the sake of Bush. He's done, politically. (We hope.)

Between now and then, the attitude of many Republicans on impeachment is going to evolve; they already know their party is in serious trouble going into the elections, and it's only going to get worse between now and then. There are a lot of dirty deeds to still be unearthed, and already people are suspect of Bushco's not cooperating with Congress.

I would not be surprised to see someone like Arlen Specter lead the impeachment cause in the coming months. They will do it to save face. "The Democrats in Congress are doing nothing, so as the minority party we must stand up for what's right and take the necessary steps to put the country back on the right track." Blah blah blah.

They will spin it to make it look like a Democratic Party issue, and once again, the Republicans are here to save the day.

Just wait...they aren't going to take one for Bush/Cheney, especially since Bush/Cheney don't appear to be doing much to help the party at this point anyway. In addition to dividing the country, they have also divided their party.

Someone will take the lead, eventually. I hope it's the Democrats.

[mzmolly]

7. I understand this perspective. But I feel at some point we have to go through the motions

regardless of "outcome." We have to make a historical statement.

I have recently learned that impeachment is not about removal, though I have confused the two here on many an occasion. ;) Impeachment is about reclaiming the Constitution, if you will. However, I do have concerns that a failed impeachment may erode the constitution even further, unless we know we have a clear majority? I'm guessing that John Conyers may have considered this as well?

Have you watched the Moyers report on impeachment? It lays out the rationale very nicely. But, in order for impeachment to get mass support, we have to stop confusing it with removal from office and we have to do it right IMHO.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[MrMickeysMom]

10. I'm questioning your 2 reasons

Reason 1 does not make sense, only because you believe the chance of impeachment's success depending on this momentum starting in the republican party. When the Before the Democratic Party was in the majority, John Conyers introduced a bill to explore grounds for impeachment (before the deeds of the Bushies were made publice). He tolod Lewis Lapham of Harper's he did this so that people would know years from then that someone DID something when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government. Sure he knew the bill would go nowhere , but now he knows the bill CAN go somewhere. Who's holding him back? Speaker Pelosi? Who has responsibility that the Majority go forward and do the work of "the people"? We do. So the majority should work to bring the repubican's ON BOARD, cause like you seem to be thinking, they will eventually have to anyway.

Reason 2 Bush, Bush, Bush, you think, eh? His personal responsibility may be self evident, but who do you think the President really is? (Well except for a few hours today, when he HAD to really be the President for the changing of Darth Cheney's dark pacer batteries)... Cheney should be impeached. and Bush, too, for they are BOTH partners in the crime family. But if you think people can't tolerate the idea of impeachment for either Cheney first, followed by Bush, or whatever the order, don't count on the American people being so "weak" about this. We are not so weak that we can't stand up for our Constitution.

Exercise in futility? No... No, we are headed toward a constitutional crisis, as these motherfuckers continue to resist subpoena after subpoena from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

For crying out loud. It's our country, NOT THEIRS.

[melody]

11. It's our country; it's their government

This is an ethically bankrupt culture of corruption equal to the Mafia. They specifically
stuck sociopaths in office in order to keep the Constitution at bay until destroyed. All
we can do is wait them out.

[MrMickeysMom]

13. Curious- would you ever change your mind on that...

.. waiting them out?

What if they didn't want to leave? Really.

[melody]

15. And you think impeachment would compel them to leave?

What the Bushites want is to push this to the Supreme Court to put a Constitutional
varnish on everything they've done.

Impeachment isn't going to compel them to leave one moment faster than an end to their
term will.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. You say that with such conviction, but it does not make sense

... because articles of impeachment have not even begun. Meanwhile, every time the Democrats have investigated powers, every time they turn over a rock, some slimy ooze facts keep coming up to the surface from it.

Look, one of the 3 articles of impeachment for Richard M Nixon concerned the executive powers stonewalling with executive privledge. You seem to think that this action will even GET to the Supreme Court. Do you realize how many things they are hiding?. Let me remind you of something, in case you're not old enough. Nixon failed without lawful cause to excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized supoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the HOR. He willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. In doing so, he he acted in a manner contrary to his trustas President and subversive of constitutional government.

You act like the Supreme Court won't recognize that, let alone the Republican Party react to it- Why would they NOT respond to this travisty before that moment of truth reached the Supreme Court. The guy they've been supporting all that time will have a lot of evidence represented of what's wrong with their whole fucking party, and that's not going to be good for the republicans in power. This has little to do with the Supreme Court.

I don't know where you get this fear that Bush wants to push "this" to the SCOTUS for a Consitutional varnisih on everything they've done. Frankly you are eitiher very young, or didn't read your history of the past 35 years.

[melody]

17. I say it with conviction because I understand the process

Your across-the-board attempt to demean my comments indicates strongly to me you do not.
You can't explain to me why my arguments are "wrong", so you have to insult them.

If you emotionally need to believe this, by all means do so. The Bush family is an entirely
different breed of monster. They do not play by the same rules nor do they have to. They
have their claws around the testicles of everyone in government.

Here's a little on all of that:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_melody_c_070713_the_bush_family_and_.htm

[MrMickeysMom]

18. You know, there are some people who can't debate when asked a question

... I realize I challenged your opinion, which so far seems to be just that- an opinion. I pointed at historical information to challenge the likelihood of impeachment and sugested that you might not be old enough to remember it, so you should maybe read history. For goodness sakes- Take a chill pill, please. Why do you see this as an across the board attempt to demean or insult YOU? Because soome person challenges you with facts from the article of the Nixon impeachment? Well, gee- maybe they should.

I made a point to visited your linked blog, which has some good observations, but, it's more about the Bush crime family, Okay, it's also ... well, your opinion. I'm talking about the likelihood of the Dem's being able to save the constitution with impeachment. I guess you were more interested in other people noting your opinion. So sorry the book in your mind slames shut after that. I sure won't make the mistake of including you in any debate, now will I? I guess you told me.

Meanwhile, try to understand that it is not the emotional need to believe, so much as the benefit from history to learn, putting your own emotions or ego aside.

[melody]

19. All you've done is take my own challenge and hurl it back at me

Typical, baseline primate rhetorical tactic. If you'd read the blog and understood it,
you'd see my points made.

My ego isn't a problem, yours seems to be. As such, your arguments are simply not worth my time.
Welcome to my ignore list -- watch it "slame" shut against you. :rofl:

[autorank]

12. There's no table...

...just a locked down, stripped down, crammed down general public ready to explode.

If that happens, which it will, the Demcorats will initiat impeachment and the Republicans will be
fortunate to join the process.

As for Little Boots, you're right. This time though he needs to be brought to ground, tried and convicted.

[HuffleClaw]

20. i support impreachment for the reason that

public investigation of the gruesome twosome would be certain to uncover their evildoings and THEN many republicans would be left with little choice. they'd have to vote for impeachment or be labelled as supporting criminals.