It's too late for an impeachment...

[kentuck]

It would only serve to unite the Republicans. Just like it did the Democrats against the Republicans when they impeached Clinton. But they did not wait until just a few months until the next election. And it was not done while we were at "war". It is nothing more than a diversion, unfortunately.

The Senate leadership nor the House leadership will touch it with a ten-foot pole. If there is to be any investigations or any justice, it will be after George W Bush is out of the White House. Also, it is different to try and impeach during a "war" than during times of peace. There will be no impeachment...

[elocs]

1. Are you wearing your asbestos suit, you DINO? Reality is a bitch, though, isn't it? n/t

[kentuck]

3. Reality is a bitch..

ain't it? Nobody has deserved impeachment more than George W Bush.

[elocs]

11. I totally agree, but there are many prosecutors in this country who would not indict

somebody they are absolutely sure is a criminal if they are sure there would be no way to convict him. In an election year, Bush would never be convicted.

[H2O Man]

15. Most prosecutors

will not bring a case if they do not believe they have enough evidence to warrent a conviction. I think that is distinct from if they think they will get a conviction.

[elocs]

19. I think whatever the reason, if they think conviction is impossible they will not indict

because jeopardy would attach. Although impeachment is a political process and not a criminal one.

[H2O Man]

20. Impeachment is a civil action,

with political and potentially criminal significance.

[elocs]

30. Impeachment without conviction doesn't mean much, especially with no possibility of conviction.

Nobody who could count ever believed there was any chance of convicting Clinton, but beign able to impeach him did give Republicans satisfaction.

[H2O Man]

35. The two sentences

in your post seem to contradict one another.

It is possible the House would impeach Bush (or Cheney). It is possible that neither would be convicted in the Senate. It is not correct that this would mean the impeachment "doesn't mean much." Those familiar with the process know that it serves as a significant type of censure from the Congress.

[elocs]

68. When a criminal fails to be convicted, much as the prosecutor suspected would happen,

the prosecutor is not all joyful with the thought, "Well at least I indicted him". The point of indicting is to gain a conviction and not just a moral victory.

There is more than one state of mind and opinion concerning impeachment and everybody does not march in lockstep with one idea. There were not many takers last year and there will be fewer in an election year. A situation will be set up where a president may always be impeached if his party does not control the House. It sounds righteous this time, but payback will be a bitch in the future.

[grasswire]

2. you are wrong on so many levels

The purpose of an impeachment now is to lay down a marker for history -- for generations that follow -- saying that the Bush administration engaged in crimes and the American people repudiated George W. Bush.

Our standing in the world would improve dramatically if Bush were condemned in the people's Congress.

That is the reason to do it now. For the children and their children. For their liberty.

[kentuck]

6. You make so much sense, grasswire...

But I just don't think it is going to happen. It's too much of a gamble for the Democrats...or so they think.

[scheming daemons]

7. The historical marker that would be laid down: "President McCain, 2009-2013"

The level at which we Democrats seem to work so hard for our own demise astounds me sometimes.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Or the demise of the Constitution, at any rate.

You don't really believe that standing up for the Constitution against well-known and vast abuses of power would LOSE us the WH, do you??

The ability of some Democrats to fall for the RW spin astounds me sometimes.

NGU.

[scheming daemons]

32. It would dominate the discussion from here until November....

We have the winning issues here.... Economy, Iraq, Health Care....


....and not ONE of them will get talked about during an impeachment circus.


The Repukes will reflexively rise up to protect their own... so we would draw disaffected and disinterested Repukes to the polls and get them to open their checkbooks for McCain.


It would be as successful for us as the impeachment of Clinton was for the Repukes in 1998. In other words... NOT AT ALL.


We are poised to take over 58 to 60 senate seats and a HUGE majority in the house, as well as the White House.


And you're willing to piss that away?


Man.... totally politically tone-deaf.



Why on earth Democrats would want to send this lifeline to the GOP and McCain is BEYOND comprehension.


Wait until AFTER the election, and then charge Bush with CRIMES. There's no way an impeachment could A) finish before the election or B) succeed, given the current proportions in congress.


It's a waste of time that ONLY serves John McCain.



But be my guest. Here's a gun. Proceed shooting Obama's candidacy in the foot.

[grasswire]

43. it's not McCain we are impeaching!

I do not think that Republicans will DARE to rise up in defense of Bush. Have we learned nothing from the last sixteen years? It is cowardice that loses Democrats power.

[ClassWarrior]

46. Defending our Constitutional Democracy ISN'T a winning issue??

The only consideration it should be given is a political one?

:crazy:

NGU.

[scheming daemons]

48. Not when the guy is on his way out anyway.

It will dominate media coverage.... and it will look like we, as Democrats, are only interested in "tit for tat" to get back at the GOP for 1998.

It will be looking backward instead of forward.


Right now... you'd be hard-pressed to find a single Republican willing to defend the Bush administration.


But start impeachment hearings, and they'll "rally around the President".


This would be completely damaging to our congressional chances in the elections..... with gas prices where they are... with the economy where it is.... the American people would NOT forgive Democrats if we made impeachment the focal point of government for the next 5 months.


All the stars are aligned for the Democrats in November.


This is about the ONLY thing we could do to fuck this up.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. But he won't be convicted

the chances are nil. So he'd be acquitted. How does that help us?

[kentuck]

23. It is doubtful he could be impeached in the Senate...

Let alone convicted. Where would we get the votes ?? From Joe Lieberman? Mary Landrieu?

[H2O Man]

24. He certainly couldn't

be impeached in the Senate. No one can.

If he were impeached by the House, it is possible he would be convicted in the Senate. It is also very possible he would not be convicted. One possibility is based on the evidence; the other is in spite of the evidence.

[onenote]

36. where you going to get the votes in the House?

There are easily more than enough Blue Dog Democrats (and other moderate/conservative Democrats) who have no interest in supporting an impeachment effort at this late date. The House is in session for around 3 more weeks before breaking for July 4th, then back again for another month before leaving for the August recess and the back again for a couple of more weeks before calling it quits in late September to go off and campaign. These members aren't going to want to start a process that will be time consuming, contentious, a distraction from the issues their constituents care about (such as $5/gallon gas) and ultimately doomed to failure because they can count the votes in the Senate.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

[H2O Man]

39. I suppose if you

had read my post #10, you could have saved your effort.

[grasswire]

41. force the debate -- force the GOP to vote

There's no downside for democracy.

[JuniperLea]

65. Well said!!

It's the principle of the thing. If we don't do this now, others will think they have the right to be just as heinously corrupt as BushCo.

We need to nip this crap in the bud!

[Barack_America]

4. I agree not to impeach him now.

Our country is some serious shit, but even though the bastard deserves to be impeached, the process would be a tremendous distraction that we can't afford. People need help.

However, he can actually still be impeached even after leaving office. And Obama has vowed to go over the Bush administration's policies with a fine-tooth comb...

[Bucky]

14. "he can actually still be impeached even after leaving office." I don't think so.

Some obsessive Republicans tried that malarkey in the months after Bill Clinton left office. Impeachment is only an indictment needed to hold a trial in the Senate--a trial for which the only punishment available is removal from office. An out-of-office impeachment makes about as much sense as a postmortem arrest warrant.

Serious people with serious job duties to perform are not going to waste time on it.

[H2O Man]

17. He can.

But it would be of zero significance.

[Barack_America]

33. It is my understanding that it could revoke his pension...

And barr him from holding federal office ever again.

But I'm no expert.

[totodeinhere]

60. Unfortunately, he is a multi millionaire and doesn't need that pension.

And he will never run for office again anyway.

I think the best course is to put him on trial at The Hague for war crimes after he leaves office. I would love to see them throw his ass in jail for thirty years. And Cheney could be his cellmate.

[AtomicKitten]

5. Investigations and hearings are long overdue and that's really the point.

I'm damn sick and tired of lawmakers hedging their bets and not doing their job because they predict not going all the way in their endeavor.

I'm calling bullshit on that noise.

Airing the sheets of this criminal administration is (1) the right thing to do, and (2) will aid Obama in bringing this bullshit war to an end.

Let the truth be heard. Out loud on CPSAN.

[philkd]

71. absolutely need substantiative investigations

A case needs to be built to a point where not impeaching would seem irresponsible. Its going to be difficult because they were completely aware that they were outside the constitution and have executed in a way that makes proving their crimes in a court very difficult (example - all communication through back channels, destroyed emails, keeping the office of president isolated from illegal decisions and policies)

[AtomicKitten]

74. It is imperative the truth go on the record in a public forum.

Bill Clinton declined pursuing prosecution of Iran-Contra and the various other assorted crimes of Bush I. We cannot afford as a nation to sweep the crimes committed by our government under the carpet. This administration should not be allowed to leave office unscathed; in fact, they should be turned over to the Hague and tried for war crimes.

[grasswire]

76. ah, a strategist.

Welcome to DU. And thanks for thinking strategically. :-)

[grasswire]

77. dupe

[ClassWarrior]

8. So all Presidents should have total immunity in their final year, and...

...in time of "war" (real or not), or when there's an election going on? When else would you allow them to commit crimes and abuse power scot-free?

NGU.

[LanternWaste]

9. on't diversions, by their very nature need to be advertised rather loudly...

"t is nothing more than a diversion, unfortunately."

Don't diversions, by their very nature need to be advertised rather loudly-- if no where else than in the MSM?

And since this will get very little (if any) news time, how can it be a diversion?

And it does beg the questions: Diversion by whom and for what purpose?

[H2O Man]

10. I respectfully disagree,

for a number of reasons. But I do not expect that there will be much support in Congress for impeachment, even though it is the correct thing to do.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Two reasons to bring it up now

1. It tells the world that at least some in government realize that what Bush has done is criminal.

2. It is a clear warning to Bush to back off attacking Iran.

[jody]

16. Agree. Sadly many others will not understand the point you are making. n/t

[Kierkegaard]

18. It is too late in the term to have * removed from office,

but I think getting the articles in the congressional record was necessary. If it can get the backing to proceed, all the better. That is a big 'if,' though.

Additionally, the war time protections do not apply as there was never a formal declaration of war.

[Lisa0825]

21. I agree, sadly. nt

[Uben]

25. But, can an impeached president give pardons?

If not, it's still worth the trouble!

[hokies4ever]

26. Cheney will find a loophole

His life is depending on it, literally! :rofl:

[Uben]

28. If cheney is impeached.........

..........he cannot be pardoned!

[hokies4ever]

29. Yeah, but didn't they already try that?

Keep in mind that Cheney is politically astute at avoiding prosecution. Even claiming that he's not part of the Executive Branch since he's President of the Senate. :rofl: It blew my mind when he made that claim.

[Blue-Jay]

27. Correct. Sadly, that train has left the station.

The time to do was prior to the 2004 election. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been right to do it since 2004, but that would have left us with President Cheney, and I fail to see the upside of that situation.

Both Bush & Cheney have committed what I consider to be Impeachable Offenses, but I fail to see what good effect it would have at this late date.

[AuntPatsy]

31. That's a copout, the reality is that it is the duty of the Representatives

that have sworn to uphold the constitution, to continue to ignore the crimes of the president of this country only lessens the citizens ability to believe that everyone is subject to the same rules and laws that we the citizens are forced to adhere to...


By the way, take a look at what our prez is up to...do you think he is wanting to give up yet, do you believe he is not a danger while he still holds power?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3420449

[scheming daemons]

34. Let's make "President Cheney" a reality...if only for a few months.... and in the process

severely damage Obama's chances of winning the White House.



My.... we Democrats are so smart. :sarcasm:




POLITICALLY. TONE. DEAF.


It's why Kucinich will never win anything other than his district, and why we Dems will likely squander our best opportunity in 76 years to completely take over the government.


Impeachment hearings are John McCain's deepest wish. He's right now saying "go Kucinich!"




Idiots.

[Zodiak]

38. my my you are such a nice person

With no evidence whatsoever, you just insult everyone you can get ahold of.

Tell me...what is politically tone-deaf about impeaching a president with a 20% approval rating and the collective enmity of the entire world? Have evidence that this would be a disaster...not your assertions...evidence? Show me a recent poll against impeachment...show me where the American people have rejected this notion recently. Then maybe I will start to entertain your idea of tone-deafness. Otherwise it is just your interpretation...which of course you defend by implying everyone that disagrees with your baseless claim is an "idiot".

How would this damage Obama....got evidence for that?

How would we not win Congress with impeachment...got evidence for that?

No?

Then it is simply your opinion, which you do NOT have to deliver with the insults and the schoolyard bully tactics.

[scheming daemons]

44. What's politically tone-deaf is the timing.... this SHOULD have been done a year and a half ago

...when we took over congress.


Doing it now is the height of stupidity and political tone-deafness.


Did you not watch in 1998 how the GOP impeachment of Clinton caused a rallying-around effect for Democrats and allowed us to do very well in the '98 midterms.... and thus costing Gingrich his job?


We're on the verge of a landslide victory for the white house, senate, and house. All we have to do is keep the current stories in the headlines. Gas Prices. Iraq.


We have a seriously lame duck presidency that even Republicans refuse to support.... and we're going to give them a reason to "rally round the President"??????


Did you see what happened to Clinton's approval ratings during impeachment? They went through the roof!.



The quickest way to turn Bush's 20% approval into a 50% approval is to begin impeachment hearings.

[Zodiak]

49. If you recall, when we took Congress

There was a BIG push to impeach....Nancy took it off of the table, remember?

They delayed....didn't even entertain the idea. They knew that if they delayed enough, then this new excuse would take effect (not enough time). In this way, they never have to take any kind of political risk at all.

I would argue that THIS is what is politically tone-deaf. Americans hate cowards and wishy washy do nothings.

By the way, did Clinton have a 20% approval rating when he was impeached? No? Then this is hardly the same thing, is it?

And how did we do in 2000? Oh yeah, the pukes took over everything, in part because our president was impeached and discredited.

You have no proof that Bush will get good numbers from being impeached. That is only supposition by drawing a false parallel with Clinton. The crimes aren't the same, the consequences to the country are not the same, and the approval rating is not the same.

No President has ever been this unpopular....none. This in itself would put us into uncharted waters normally, but Nixon was pretty unpopular when the articles were drawn for him so we can get some parallel from him. Did his impeachment rally the Republicans? No? Then what are we afraid of?

Risk aversion like this is what gets our party the reputation for being wimps.

[scheming daemons]

51. We've waited a year and a half... we missed the window. Now the best option is WAR CRIMES trials

*AFTER* January.


Doing it now would backfire in a big way. But don't listen to me. Let's your zeal kill our election chances.



Do you REALLY think that Americans will respond well to this at this time, when we're facing economic crises and exploding fuel costs?

Don't you think that Americans will see congress as NOT working to solve their problems, but instead engaging in a game of tit-for-tat on the hill?



George Bush is a criminal. He should be tried by an Obama administration.


But the GOP is also currently crippled. And impeachment hearings now, just 5 months before the election, will do nothing but be their salvation.

[totodeinhere]

62. I mostly agree although I think it should be an international tribunal that tries him.

[Zodiak]

69. Again all of this assertion that the American people will respond negatively

If you ask people why they suffer these days, most of the answers you will get is "George Bush".

Once again, I would like to emphasize how much this man is hated across America. A 20% approval rating is VERY hard to achieve. Even Nixon could not accomplish that.

When Congress tries to solve a problem, who vetoes it? George Bush. I am willing to bet that the American people will see this as taking care of the problem at its source. At this point, it would not be seen as political except by those 20% that still approve of him. The "fringe". I do not fear the fringe RWers.

Also, I take exception to being classified as some kind of zealot. This is about the rule of law and rescuing the Democrats from the reputation of risk aversion. I see this as a straight-forward argument in the interest of the rule of law, the supremacy of our Constitution, and our international reputation.

You really should try to ascribe less emotion and motive to those that are close enough for you to ask such things.

[Yukari Yakumo]

63. What big push?

Virtually anyone who ran on a impeachment platform lost in '06.
The only "big" push came from an tiny, insane group who are hell bent on getting their way regardless of the consequences.
Nancy took it off the table for one reason, it was a battle neither she nor the Democrats could not win. To claim otherwise would be tone-deaf and blind.

Here's the fun rub, what do we charge him with? Hmm? What high crimes do we accuse him of? Lying, despite being a popular argument, cannot be one of them as it wasn't done under oath. As for other crimes, what evidence directly implicates Bush?

[H2O Man]

67. Wrong on an important point.

"Lying" does not have to be done under oath. Anyone who is aware of the Scooter Libby trial knows that.

Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors." That includes not only offenses of a criminal nature, but abuses of the power of office as well. Again, those who recall Richard Nixon are aware that he faced impeachment for, among other things, abusing the power of his office.

[Moochy]

40. Stop with the smug insulting bullshit

[scheming daemons]

45. Stop with the shooting our election chances in the foot....

[H2O Man]

47. Can you name

a single example of a case where an attempt to impeach resulted in an election loss? I should point out John Nichols' book "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism," as a source that lists all of your options.

[scheming daemons]

50. Yeah..... 1998.

Democrats did VERY well in the midterms and Speaker Gingrich lost his job because he spent the entire year leading up to the election doing nothing but impeachment.

The American people made Gingrich and the Republicans pay in 1998.



Jesus...it was only 10 years ago..... Did you forget already?



Clinton's approval rating was at about 50% before impeachment started. It was in the mid-60% range at the November 1998 elections.


You want to salvage George Bush's 20% approval ratings? Then begin impeachment hearings.



Wow.... we are incredibly politically tone-deaf as Democrats sometimes.

[H2O Man]

52. Which house of Congress

did the republicans lose in '98?

[H2O Man]

54. PS:

Please look at pages 92-93 of Nichols' book for the statistics that document an increase in voter support for republicans in '98, including several of those who led the impeachment effort.

Of course I'm not in favor of losing elections in 2008. My point is quite the opposite. Knowing one's history is generally considered an advantage.

[scheming daemons]

57. We won seats in the 6th year of a Presidency.... an almost unheard of event

Not enough to take over...... but the out-of-white-house party almost ALWAYS kicks ass in the 6th year of a Presidency....


....and in 1998, the Dems held their own.


It got Gingrich fired.

[H2O Man]

59. Newt

lost for a variety of reasons, none more important than those who were his previous supporters rejected him for his personal failures. And the republicans had a higher percentage of voter support in '98 than in '96. And, as Nichols notes, "...Hyde, Sensenbrenner and many other Republicans who were outspoken in their condemnation of Clinton remained leaders within their party and the House, control of which never shifted from Republican hands." (p 73)

[Moochy]

37. June 20th McClellan's testimony

May spark more interest in these 35 articles.

:(

I know, I know they wont. But in a more perfect union his testimony would lead to impeachment of both VP and President.

[MyNameGoesHere]

42. Well actually no

it says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It does not say it is too late when kentuck says it is. Lovely thing that constitution.

[Yukari Yakumo]

66. Got evidence Chimpy committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

We'd sure love to hear about it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

72. I have been paying attention these last

7+ years. Some i guess not so much.

[grasswire]

78. did you not listen to Dennis Kucinich?

Besides, what is the standard for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason?

The case against Clinton set the precedent that high crimes were whatever the House of Representatives wished them to be.

[zulchzulu]

53. We have a few weeks to fill in before the Conventions... why not?

It could be done pretty quickly...and the evidence is there.

Call your representatives. This could be a FUN summer!

[grasswire]

55. Bruce Fein, Bill Moyers, John Nichols

Please go read the transcript of their discussion on the importance of impeachment before you make any recommendations. Here's a portion:

JOHN NICHOLS: ... Let's start to use the "i" word. Impeach is a useful word. It is a necessary word. The founders in the Constitution made no mention of corporation or political parties or conventions or primaries or caucuses. But they made six separate references to impeachment. They wanted us to know this word, and they wanted us to use it.

BILL MOYERS: You're-- does this process have to go all the way to the end? Do Bush and Cheney have to be impeached before it serves the public?

JOHN NICHOLS: I think that what Bush and Cheney have done makes a very good case that the public and the future would be well served if it did go all the way to the end. But there is absolutely a good that comes of this if the process begins, if we take it seriously. And the founders would have told you that, -- that impeachment is a dialogue. It is a discourse. And it is an educational process. If Congress were to get serious about the impeachment discussions, to hold the hearings, to begin that dialogue, they would begin to educate the American people and perhaps themselves about the system of checks and balances, about the powers of the presidency, about, you know, what we can expect and what we should expect of our government.

And so I think that when Jefferson spoke about this wonderful notion of his that said the tree of liberty must be watered every 20 years with the blood of patriots, I don't know that he was necessarily talked about warfare. I think he was saying that at a pretty regular basis we ought to seek to hold our-- highest officials to account and that process, the seeking to hold them to account, wherever it holds up, is-- a necessary function of the republic. If we don't do it, we move further and further toward an imperial presidency.

BRUCE FEIN: The great genius of the founding fathers, their revolutionary idea, with the chief mission of the state is to make you and them free to pursue their ambitions and faculties. Not to build empires, not to aggrandize government. That's the mission of the state, to make them free, to think, to chart their own destiny. And the burden is on government to give really good explanations as to why they're taking these extraordinary measures. And on that score, Bush has flunked on every single occasion. And we need to get the American people to think. Every time that there's an incursion on freedom, they have to demand why. What is the explanation? Give me a good reason before I give up my freedom.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html

[H2O Man]

56. Elizabeth de la Vega, too. n/t

[grasswire]

58. look, the reason for this is the same as the reason Gore should...

...have forced Congress to take the election away from him with a voice vote in December of 2000: as a marker for history that a crime had been committed against the people of the United States of America.

To "go along to get along" is to implicitly tell the future of humankind that the crimes were allowed to pass without offense to the people.

Besides, we do not know if Bush-Cheney will actually leave the WH. An impeachment process would put pressure on that evil notion.

I believe it's imperative to reign them in, in these last months. An impeachment trial would do just that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. You're Right. It Doesn't Have A Chance In A Million Years. Fighting For It At This Point Is An

exercise in silliness. Honorable in ways, but ultimately still really silly. There are far better things those activists should be focusing their energy on instead.

[loyalsister]

64. I think you make a very good argument

Furthermore, I think that another problem may be that if impeachment fails investigations that follow could lose credibility.

If they are not impeached, there still exists the possibility of the kind of pursuit of investigation that the current administration has proven itself to be worthy. And, they will be private citizens with less power to block subpeonas, etc.

Most importantly, the fearful will no longer feel dependent on them for their safety during a time of war.

Their lens will have been adjusted.

[smiley_glad_hands]

70. I agree.

It would only serve as a distraction at this point. Our focus needs to be on winning in Nov. I am glad DK brought this back up, if only to keep the pugs and bushies on the defensive, but its a nonstarter.

Stay focused and keep your eye on the ball: November.

[iamthebandfanman]

73. we need to wait this out

and then prosecute after they leave office.


if this was 2004, id be all about taking Dick down....

[Steely_Dan]

75. I recall a quote from...

the movie "JFK." The prosecutor said something to the effect....

"Let the truth be told, though the heavens fall."

That's how I feel about impeaching Bush and bringing men to justice. This is a country of laws! Political consideration should never determine if and/or when we apply the law. It is never too late to be accountable.

-P

[Cleita]

79. If it united the Democrats so much, why did Bush get so much of the vote

that he could cheat the rest of the way into the White House and I knew many Democrats who voted for Bush because they bought into the Clinton is immoral argument? If the guy is six feet under, it's not too late. The very fabric of our democracy and the credibility of our country demands it. History demands it. Congress will touch it when they cannot ignore the will of "we the people" anymore. Remember, it's how we got out of Vietnam, a situation that everyone who could do something about it said had no solution so no one attempted one until we the people scared them into one.