Pelosi: " 'We don’t have time for that (impeachment)"

[pat_k]

NY Times
October 8,2006
How the Democrats Would Rule the Hill
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/weekinreview/08toner.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

. . .Ms. Pelosi, mindful of the power of the Republican charge that the Democrats will spend the next two years on partisan payback, explicitly ruled out impeachment of Mr. Bush in an interview on Thursday. 'Absolutely,' she said. 'We don’t have time for that.'. . .

Dear Congresswoman Pelosi,

What do you think you are promising to do with your shiny new non-veto-proof majority. Not that the veto has any meaning under "rule by signing statement" anyway. What's your magic solution to that one?

When you make such promises you do nothing but give Bush and Cheney cover. ("If what Bush and Cheney are doing were unconstitutional, more members of the opposition would be demanding impeachment. They are not.")

How can the American people trust the Democratic Party to stand up to terrorists if you refuse to stand up to Bush? If you refuse to rescue the Constitution?

Do you realize how morally-confused and cowardly the Democratic leadership sounds when you condemn Bush for nullifying the Constitution in one breath, and then with the next tell the American people "Hey, but don't worry, we have no intention of doing anything about it. We won't impeach anyone!"

Why do you think the nation perceives the Democratic Party as weak and unprincipled? Ever considered it is because you repeatedly refuse to fight for the principles you claim to be committed to?

[LeftCoast]

1. Clinton's impeachment took two years

There's no time to do it before Bush is out of office.

Not that they shouldn't launch a bunch of investigations into wrong-doing...they could still be held criminally liable AFTER the misadministration is out of office.

[Ravy]

5. Well said. It is enough to be able to block the illegal activity and

investigate for criminal proceedings after he leaves office. We have to reverse this course and impeachment will be a distraction.

[pat_k]

25. So, be complicit until 2008? Why would you do this?

[Ravy]

38. Blocking future illegalities and investigating past ones is not being

complicit.

There is no way that Dems will have enough votes for a conviction in the Senate, even if they got enough votes for impeachment in the House.

There is far too much damage to fix than to mire the country down in impeachment proceedings. Let the courts handle it when they leave office. In the meantime, we need to investigate, and pass legislation to stop the current illegal acts.

My opinion, of course.

[pat_k]

90. Impeachment is a defensive act to rescue the Constitution. . .

. . .from destructive forces by removing those forces. Bringing to justice is completely separate thing.

When members of Congress fail to speak out and demand action to protect the constitution (as they are sworn to do), they are complicit. They are giving cover to the destroyers of the constitution. The destroyers can claim: "We cannot be destroyers, if we were, more of those who have the power to stop us would be calling on their colleagues to act. Their silence proves our innocence."

[Ravy]

124. Impeachment doesn't remove anyone from anything.

It just formally charges them with their crimes. The Senate would have to muster enough votes to convict him, and.... if they did, Cheney would be President.

There would also be potential backlash against the Democrats, especially if they brought charges that had no chance of leading to a conviction, much like prosecutors who try people with insufficient evidence. If he is tried in the Senate where approximately half of the "jury" is Republican and is already on record of fully supporting everything we would be impeaching him for, it could be judged double-jeopardy if there was ever an attempt to prosecute him after he left office.

[pat_k]

152. Demanding impeachment = demand for impeachment and removal

And of course, Cheney must be impeached for asserting the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive. He is as guilty as Bush (if not more so) for their Un-Constitutional power grab.

The prima fascia case is simple to convey -- Feingold did a fine job of it.

There is no more reason to believe in "backlash" than to believe that respect for members of the Democratic Party would surge to unprecedented heights because they took up a fight on principle, come what may, and thus demonstrated the strength and fortitude Americans respect.

As I have pointed out in numerous other responses, the probability of success or failure and fears related to personal political consequence are irrelevant to the decision to take up a fight when doing so is a moral imperative.

Their oath to protect and defend calls on them to take up the fight. Their oath is an individual oath. their choice is an individual choice: Duty or Complicity. Open their mouths and tell the truth about this administration, and be willing to do what those truths demand of you, or be silent and give cover to the rogues in the WH.

When principle demands action, you must act, or betray the principle you claim to be committed to.

[Ravy]

168. Cheney would not be so easy to impeach.

What law has he signed that violates the constitution?

Would you impeach/remove him just for advocating something that violates the constitution? If so, you would be guilty of the same crime as him.

[pat_k]

169. Of course I would impeach and remove him for conspiring to. . .

. . .usurp the powers of legislative and judicial branches by repeatedly invoking the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive to torture, to spy on Americans without warrant, to rule by signing statement. Both Bush and Cheney have publicly confessed to the criminal acts committed by the Office of the President, and both appeal to non-existent and Unconstitutional powers in defense.

When a holder of high office who wields the power of that office advance an agenda that subverts the constitution, impeachment is required by Congressional oath. How else would you defend the constitution from such subversion?

[populistdriven]

196. The real cleanup will start in 09 after the GOP is gone (photo)

Until then * will continue to make a mess out of DC and Pelosi will have her hands full.

[Ravy]

198. So has every Republican you would need to vote against them.

And several supreme court justices.

As much as you and I would like it to, we are going to have to battle for the hearts and minds of the American people to quell this movement. Vindictiveness is not a good way to start, IMHO.

[pat_k]

204. Has nothing to do with vindictiveness. And the BEST thing we can do

. . .to deal with Iraq is to reject the horrible failures and torture and show the people of the Middle East that, like them, we uneqivically reject the horrors this rogue President has done. It is also the ONLY way to re-engage NATO and other nations and create a real coalition.

Bush not only torched the Constitution, he burned all international bridges. If Democratic Party leaders start talking loud and clear about restoring rule of law here, rescuing the Constitution -- real American values, and restoring legitimacy overseas so we can actually begin to undp the damage, they will be offering a real positive agenda, not the empty they offer now.

When they start accusing Bush in the strongest terms (and the Right, particularly white males revel in accusation and demands for "punishment" -- even though that is not the purpose, they do see it that way, and like it that way} they will finally be coherent (instead of trying to have it both ways, tell some truth in such weak terms no one hears it, and promise to be derilect in their duty to do anything about the truth).

http://january6th.org/du_post_hope.html

[Ravy]

207. We aren't that far apart.

I agree with everything you say about the talking loud and clear and in the strongest terms.

Impeachment/removal from office is all punishment. It will not undo anything that the administration has done. Every law passed and signed will still be law. The courts are the remedy for unconstitutional laws. They are also much more adept at assigning an appropriate punishment.

The danger of impeachment is that when removal fails, the administration will argue (perhaps successfully) that double-jeopardy is in play and the courts cannot try them after office.

[Imagevision]

208. Scalia already said NO to Cheney's Enron documents being revealed

[HeeBGBz]

109. Skip impeachment

And go directly to war crimes?

[pat_k]

113. Impeach & remove to defend against further damage, then off to the Hague

[Ravy]

123. That is what I would hope they do.

However justified impeachment is, they just need to investigate and bring stuff to light. Impeachment can happen if the Dems win control, but what will that give us? Even if the Senate would vote to convict (extremely unlikely) it would leave us with Cheney as president.

It would be a whole lot of effort and give us nothing but divisiveness. The House has a lot of work to do to get the country turned around. They need to use the investigations like a club and show the people that they still know how to lead a country by passing good legislation. Bush will have no power, and every veto of good legislation will be another nail in the Republican coffin in 2008.

Get the investigations together and yes, turn the evidence over to a tribunal or the US Courts when Bush leaves office.

[riderinthestorm]

128. Political ploy to defuse Repuke talking point that Dems will be vindictive

I think Pelosi is being wise to hedge her bets - take that "scary" Repuke talking point off the table for now.

Can't she change her mind later??
:evilgrin:

[Laurab]

130. BINGO!

I couldn't agree more!

[pat_k]

142. see Post #141

[Ravy]

135. She can, but I don't think that she will.

The damage has been done. If an impeachment and conviction would roll back the last six years, I would be saying "Hell yeah" with the vast majority of Americans, but it won't.

Preventing further abuses, passing legislation to repair some of the damage, using investigations to add clout to the Democratic legislative agenda and further discredit the Republican agenda is the path I hope she takes.

[pat_k]

144. There is only one way to prevent further abuses. . .remove from office. .

. . .via impeachment.

Impeachment may look like a "trial" but the purpose is defense, not punishment.

It is a form of "You are a menace. Turn off the engine. Get out of the car."

When a cop pulls over a drunk driver, they are not just going after a criminal; they are protecting the public from the menace of an out of control driver. That is their FIRST duty.

Just as the police are sworn to protect the public, members of Congress are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the primary "weapon" though which they fulfill that oath.

When we established our Constitution, we understood the power we were entrusting to our civil officials, and we understood that some would abuse that power to destroy our Constitution from within the executive or judiciary. Impeachment is the remedy we created.

The balance of power is not equally divided. When we vested the power to impeach in Congress, we put a big fat thumb on the scales in favor of the institution through which we express our will.

Why would you hesitate to call on Congress to use the precise tool we put in their hands to repair this type of breach? Impeachment is how we say "You broke our common contract and abused the power entrusted to you; we are enforcing the original terms and taking that power from you."

As long as Bush and Cheney wield the massive power of the American Presidency, the devastation of our constitutional democracy continues (more dollars stolen from our pockets to line the pockets of cronies; more dollars and decades added to the burden of debt on our children; continued dismantling of the entities that enforce and execute the laws we pass; more corruption of our election systems by a corrupt justice department; growing disdain for the U.S. throughout the world. . . the list is endless).

Why wouldn't we do everything in our power to remove power from the rogue forces and enlist our fellow Americans to re-assert their sovereignty through impeachment, the process we created to serve this purpose?

[pat_k]

141. How can she later claim she isn't being "vindictive" or partisan. . .

. . .if they move to impeach only after they have a majority?

How can they claim they are acting on principle when they failed to fight on principle before it was "safe" to do so?

How committed can you be to your principles when you don't bother to fight for them for years?

Instead of defusing a talking point, she is confirming the perception (and talking point) that the Democratic Party is weak and unprincipled.

[Laurab]

186. Of course they'll claim she's being both of those things

At least some people would. One would hope impeachment would be after investigations, testimony under oath and things like that. When it becomes clear to the American public exactly what this administration has done (if we CAN ever find out completely), I think only rabid right wingers would claim that.

I think by not defusing that talking point, she is doing the wise thing. It takes away a repuke talking point, and doesn't scare off swing or repug voters. Whether or not she means it, I don't know. I'm just guessing she doesn't. It's just so glaringly obvious to me that these people NEED to be impeached. Then again, a Cheney Presidency is not an attractive thought.

First things first, though. Take back the majority, THEN worry about the rest. There is a LOT to worry about, and a lot to fix.

[pat_k]

190. On what basis do you assert that accusing Bush and Cheney of their . . .

. . .crimes and demanding impeachment would "scare off swing or repug voters."?

Republican voters aren't listening to Pelosi. They are listening to the likes of Paul Weyrich and David Horowitz, who are telling them the opposite -- that the Dems will surely impeach. So, assurances of "no impeachment" from our Democratic leaders are useless to that cohort.

A vast majority of swing voters have already swung. They are furious with Bush. Rather than "scaring them off" Democratic leaders are more likely to activate them by giving voice to their anger.

WRT Cheney. Of course, he must be impeached too. Both Bush and Cheney have publicly confessed to the criminal acts committed by the Office of the President, and both appeal to non-existent and Unconstitutional powers in defense.

[Laurab]

202. I think you're giving voters way too much credit

IMO many voters get their news from the MSM. While they may finally be aware that * is a bad pResident - even a REALLY bad one, I just don't think they have any idea of what he's done. The average voter, I've read, sometimes chooses "the guy they want to sit down and have a beer with". Or votes Repug or Dem based on their family background, or something like that.

Why do you think, that with all the laws this administration has broken, with all the damage to our privacy and our Constitution, the only thing that got a LOT of attention is the Foley thing? Right now it's looking like that is going to be the thing that FINALLY does serious damage to this teflon-like administration. And, frankly, I don't care what does it, so long as something does.

The really involved repugs might not be listening to Pelosi, but the ones who get their news from the newspaper or nightly news are. They may be furious with bush, but I believe they would like to feel that the dems will take care of what's wrong with this country - at least first. Get OUT of Iraq, fix the deficit, fix our reputation in the world, work on poverty and health care. Most of all, apparently, get the pedophiles out of the government.

I'm not talking about me or you, I'm talking about the average voter. I want to see Bush and Cheney impeached as much as the next person. I'd love to see them at one of our lovely detainee prisons. I just think it's wise to take the impeachment talking point away from the repugs for people not as knowledgable as you and I.

Honestly, I don't want to argue this with you. I probably know way less than you do about these things. It's just my opinion and perhaps I'm wrong.

[aquart]

181. "We weren't going to impeach, but................" Sure can.

[pat_k]

185. The risk of that approach is a given -- they will be seen as hypocrites. .

. . .who promised not to act because they were afraid of "backlash" -- and then turned around and acted when they figured it was "safe."

As much as I want to see them fight for impeachment and removal, regardless of when they Wake Up and Take Up the Fight, I wish we could save them from themselves.

By promising "no impeachment" now, they condemn themselves to looking like weak hypocrites if they take up impeachment after the election.

There is no way to finesse when principle demands action, and you betray your principles by refusing to act.

[aquart]

187. Not if we look really really shocked and the polls are with us.

Then hypocrisy doesn't stand against a charge of covering for criminals.

AND WE HAVE TO STOP BEING SCARED OF REPUBLICAN CRITICISM. That allows them to frame the debate. Never allow that. Never answer their accusations WITHOUT REFRAMING THEM. Change the wording and direction and toss it back.

Try to remember: Treasonous, greedy, heartless, incompetent, uncharitable, unChristian, well-bribed bastards have no room to criticize anyone.

[pat_k]

189. You are making my case for me. . .

. . .of course, if they fail to call for impeachment now, they still have a sworn duty to act.

But, in failing to accuse and demand impeachment before winning back the Congress, they guarantee that when they do act they will be viewed as hypocrites and confirm the perception that the Democratic Party is weak.

Of course, that consequence must not stop them from acting, but the point is, that consequences is avoidable. If they accuse and demand impeachment now (or had done so last month or last year) they would not have to endure the contempt.

If they stand up for principle when it was NOT safe to do so -- when they risk something, they prove themselves to be principled and strong. (And as a consequence are more likely to WIN more elections.)

[pat_k]

137. Impeachment is defensive ("You are a menace. Turn off the engine. Get out

. . .of the car.")

When a cop pulls over a drunk driver, they are not just going after a criminal; they are protecting the public from the menace of an out of control driver. That is the FIRST responsibility.

Impeachment may look like a "trial" but the purpose is defense, not punishment.

Just as a cop is sworn to protect the public, members of Congress are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the primary "weapon" though which they fulfill that oath.

Accusation, indictment, judgment, and punishment in the courts (or at the Hague) and must follow, but the first order of business is to rescue the Constitution from the abuse it is suffering and stop further damage by impeaching and removing.

When we established our Constitution, we understood the power we were entrusting to our civil officials, and we understood that some would abuse that power to destroy our Constitution from within the executive or judiciary. Impeachment is the remedy we created.

The balance of power is not equally divided. When we vested the power to impeach in Congress, we put a big fat thumb on the scales in favor of the institution through which we express our will.

Why would you hesitate to call on Congress to use the precise tool we put in their hands to repair this type of breach? Impeachment is how we say "You broke our common contract and abused the power entrusted to you; we are enforcing the original terms and taking that power from you."

As long as Bush and Cheney wield the massive power of the American Presidency, the devastation of our constitutional democracy continues (more dollars stolen from our pockets to line the pockets of cronies; more dollars and decades added to the burden of debt on our children; continued dismantling of the entities that enforce and execute the laws we pass; more corruption of our election systems by a corrupt justice department; growing disdain for the U.S. throughout the world. . . the list is endless).

Why wouldn't we do everything in our power to remove power from the rogue forces and enlist our fellow Americans to re-assert their sovereignty through impeachment, the process we created to serve this purpose?

[petgoat]

201. Cheney is impeachable. If you know the arcana of the timeline of the

flight 93, you can see that it's very likely that he ordered
it shot down before he had authorization from the President.

The 9/11 Commission went through some amazing contortions to
make him look innocent of this. If you read between the lines
of the last page of the Newsweek article, "The Shot Heard Round
the World," you can see that Newsweek is wise to the whole thing.

It's disguised as a psychological analysis, but IMHO it's Newsweek's
notice to the administration that they know what's going on.


"Around 9:35 on the morning of 9/11, Cheney was lifted off his feet by the Secret Service and hustled into the White House bunker. Cheney testified to the 9/11 Commission that he spoke with President Bush before giving an order to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner that appeared headed toward Washington. (The plane was United Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after a brave revolt by the passengers.) But a source close to the commission, who declined to be identified revealing sensitive information, says that none of the staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation believed Cheney's version of events.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

"A draft of the report conveyed their skepticism. But when top White House officials, including chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, reviewed the draft, they became extremely agitated. After a prolonged battle, the report was toned down. The factual narrative, closely read, offers no evidence that Cheney sought initial authorization from the president. The point is not a small one. Legally, Cheney was required to get permission from his commander in chief, who was traveling (but reachable) at the time. If the public ever found out that Cheney gave the order on his own, it would have strongly fed the view that he was the real power behind the throne."

Note Newsweek is casting doubt on the 9/11 Commission's claim that Cheney didn't get to the
bunker until 9:58--which was safely too late before flight 93 "crashed" (strewing a six-mile
debris field) to have ordered a shoot-down.

Note Norm Mineta said he saw Cheney in the bunker at 9:25 discussing an apparent shoot-down
order on flight 77.

[tblue]

132. She's decided not to show her hand. She's no dummy, ya know.

Somebody is advising the Dems not to talk openly about impeachment. I don't agree with that as a political move, if that is what it is. I would scream IMPEACH from the top of my lungs if I was her. But I don't think for a second that she doesn't have a mind to throw all these rat bastards out. First things first, baby steps, people. Does anybody know if there's been polling on impeachment?

[pat_k]

148. That "somebody" is Paul Weyrich. . . propagandist extraordinaire

As much I want to see them wake up to the moral imperative of impeachment, it is disturbing to think that she may actually intend to move to impeach after the election and is just flat out lying. I have just assumed she bought the nonsense that "Americans don't like conflict" and "Americans just want us to move forward with a positive agenda."

It is so hard to fathom how they can buy into the notion that an agenda that deliberately leaves the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of a rogue syndicate could be considered a "positive agenda" but it seems to be the prevailing bit of irrational "conventional wisdom" within the beltway.

It is also painful to see the so-called Democratic "strategists" suck up Paul Weyrich's propaganda (endlessly parroted by the pund-idiots in the media -- and we know how great they are at describing reality).

You've gotta wonder sometimes how all these "strategists" keep their jobs after years of spouting demonstrably counter-productive advice.

[pat_k]

16. He could be out in a day. The Republican movers and shakers know . . .

. . Bush and Cheney are toast the minute the risk of Impeachment became a reality. They do not want to hear the horrors committed by Bush and Cheney reported day after day as the investigation and hearings unfold.

Their hurry to pass the War Criminals Protection Act shows us how frightened they are.

And even if it took every day until the next inauguration, so what? When the danger is clear and present, you must act. Now. Not later. If they do not, they violate their oath.

Criminal charges after the fact do nothing to restore our constitutional democracy or show the world that the United States will not tolerate the intolerable. Every day they go on, "business as usual" they give cover to the War Criminals.

How do you think we can begin to redeem the United States in the eyes of the world if we do not do everything in our power to remove this rogue regime?

Clinton's impeachment took years because it had NO legitimacy. His actions posed absolutely NO threat to the fabric of our constitutional democracy. The Republicans in Congress abused their power of impeachment to overthrow a legitimate President. They did more than violate their oath to support and defend; they mounted an attack on our constitutional democracy.

[LeftCoast]

20. Where are you going to get the 66 votes in the Senate?

I still don't think you could impeach anyone in 'a day' but even if you could I just don't see 66 Senators voting for it. Maybe after a two year investigative process and trial in the House, but again, we don't have that much time...

[pat_k]

23. Your point? Don't fight for the nation unless you are guaranteed victory?

Be complicit with those who are destroying the fabric of our constitutional democracy?

[alfredo]

33. It's 2008, not revenge that is important. Two years of investigation and

revelations will paint the Republicans in true colors. By the time the campaign rolls around, the Grand Old Party won't be worth a plugged nickel.

Impeaching bush would make Cheney president, and the Rep's choice for 2008 the Veep. That's not the best scenario. It's better to have a neutered bush and cheney in office.

The unconstitutional powers he granted by himself and his compliant congress will be challenged.

It is also good that Pelosi is saying this before the election. it will soothe any fears that the next two years will be nothing but wall to wall impeachment talk. I think she is being smart about this.

Let's make sure the ICC can get their hands on him and cheney. That might be the only way we can rehabilitate our name. We either have to try him for war crimes, or turn him over to the world court for trial.

[pat_k]

93. Cheney must be impeached too -- the fascist fantasy of a unitary. .

. . . authoritarian executive is at the core of ALL their crimes. He too is an adherent and cannot be permitted to wield the power of the Presidency.

This is not about elections. It is about the foundation of our nation.

Our common contact, the Constitution, is in breach. Those who are sworn to re-assert the terms by removing the contract breakers are betraying their oath.

They can invoke a myriad of rationalizations for that betrayal, but it is a betrayal none the less.

And in their failure, they are complicit with the destruction of the principles and institutions on which our nation is founded.

[alfredo]

111. Then there would be charges of the Dems trying to make

Nancy Pelosi president using the impeachment.

[pat_k]

114. If the Repubs move REALLY fast, they get President Hastert. . .

. . .which is a preferable outcome to silence and complicity.

When you fight for principle, you fight for principle, come what may.

Fighting now, when the outcome may be President Hastert makes it clear that the fight is independent of partisanship. (Of course, it would have been better if the "You can have Pres. Hastert or Pres. Pelosi on '07" offer had been made years ago, or even months ago, but that is water under the bridge.)

Restoring legitimacy to the executive branch and saying "NO" to a unitary authoritarian executive in the United States trumps Party. (Fighting for principle is like that. Which is why, when you refrain from fighting for "strategic" reasons, you open yourself to charges -- accurate charges -- of hypocrisy and partisanship.)

And if the Republicans don't act, we are free to start an X for Speaker/Pres campaign. . .where X is whoever we want to see in the White House. (I'd get on the Conyers for Pres 2007 bus.)

[alfredo]

118. bush is bad at playing defense. With Dems in charge of

congress, he will be on the defense. Having him watch as his power is taken away, as his lies and misdeeds are exposed is just as good as kicking him out. A weak president will not be able to stop the Dems from restoring our rights and freedoms. You can humiliate him by impeaching him, or you can humiliate him by taking away what he holds most dear: power. Having him forced into compromising will be worse than death to him and cheney.


At 33% he has few options.

[pat_k]

27. One of those "visits" followed by a resignation. (Remember Nixon?)

We cannot know an outcome until it is behind us. Victory is as much a possibility as defeat. Events at each juncture open new possibilities.

No matter what we believe our "chances," when principle demands action, we must act. Even if it is a "charge of the light brigade."

[LeftCoast]

36. My point is - don't start a fight you can't finish

We can't finish this fight since we don't have the time or the votes. On the other hand we can investigate and reveal the truth and then let the legal process handle it.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[pat_k]

89. Do you really believe you know the outcome in advance?

. . .No human can see every event and every juncture, every decision, every reaction, and every conversation around every kitchen table.

When principle demands action, you must act, or betray the principle you claim to be committed to.

Even if it is ultimately a "charge of the light brigage" there are intermediate victories. Like making the truth visible. Engaging citizens. A national debate on who we are as a nation.

[bread_and_roses]

107. Right On, pat_k! And if Pelosi had a brain she'd be saying...

"Do you think the pResident has done something impeachable that you are asking that question." Why must she give away the store?

You are right that her words give the criminal Orc Cabal in power cover. Not enough time? We have not enough time to let one more day than is necessary to the democratic process pass with that miserable little puppet's "signing statements" and lies and killing and increasing hatred of America around the globe. Bring them to their knees, and let the people see and hear what they have done while in office.

[pat_k]

112. There are countless others who agree -- including Republicans. . .

. . .and members of Congress are hearing from us. And now that they are home, they will be hearing from more of us.

Seattle Post Intelligencer
Democrats hope to reclaim key conservatives
By CHARLES POPE
P-I NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/287233_reagandems02.html

Rep. Brian Baird is another Washington Democrat whose district is streaked with Republican strongholds. Like Larsen, Baird senses uneasiness and frustration among voters that Democrats hope to exploit.

"I had a guy two weeks ago come up to me and tell me straight up -- Congressman, I'm a lifelong Republican. If the Democrats retake the House, will you impeach the president? I don't think that's the best use of time, and I started to say that. But before I could, he said, "If you do, you should.'"

And from the http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/weekinreview/08toner.html?pagewanted=print">article cited in the original post:

. . .Representative Pete Stark, the decidedly liberal Democrat on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, said: "The '08 contest for the White House will be the major moderating influence. I don't think we're going to run out and impeach Rumsfeld and Bush, although a lot of my constituents would like to.". . .

[fooj]

162. It's not November 8th yet. WE don't KNOW if we'll have the votes.

I know one thing for certain. Congressman Conyers is ready to blow the doors right off their propaganda bus. He knows the score.

[survivor999]

67. If there was conclusive proof

9/11 was a plot and that Chimpy knew about it, I think we'd find 66 votes in the Senate.

[Tellurian]

26. Toast is not that easy to prepare..

you're missing a vital part of information necessary for your
analysis...when you realize what it entails, you'll better
understand why Pelosi says; "we don't have time.."

see post #17

[pat_k]

29. Your point escapes me.

[Tellurian]

34. Click on the link in Post #17

Read in it's entirety..

The wording in the Constitution has been changed- The meaning of which is not
the same as when Clinton was Impeached...Victory..will take time because..
the news words amending the Constitution SUPPORT the "ARCHITECTS" Bush et al,
will have to be changed back to appropriate words giving Impeachment Power
BACK to the Constitution!!!!! That action has to come from Congress..

IOW..Bush has removed the TEETH for IMPEACHMENT from the Constitution and in order
to replace the TEETH...The wording has to be amended by a Congressional majority to
even begin Impeachment proceedings!!

[pat_k]

56. Reality trumps legalisms. Congress trumps.

. . .We vested the power to impeach in Congress and Congress alone. To fulfill their oath, members of Congress must take up the battle to exercise that power. And if the executive and judiciary try to stop them, so what? In process, the nation would get a much needed civics lesson.

If need be, Congress can exercise it's power to impeach any high official in the judiciary or executive who seeks to undo the intent of our constitution and our laws. The letter of the law is for the judiciary to interpret. It is up to Congress to step and in ensure the intent of the law is carried out.

To believe legal technicality can trump reality or the collective will of the people is a fascist view of the law.

However it plays out, we can predict one thing. The truth, that we vested more power in Congress -- our voice -- than in the other branches will be spoken and will be heard by countless citizens.

And, once again, we come back to the bottom line: Predictions of outcome are irrelevant to the moral imperative to act. When principle demands action it is a betrayal of principle to refuse to act.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Tellurian]

17. Yes, that was the original deal...and only if money laundering

charges were filed and the existence of enough evidence to convict.

This newest Constitutional addendum, signed a week ago last friday,
has created a loop hole in the already threadbare Constitution.

The meaning of which, as long as the Constitution stands as has been
amended by the Bush Gang, they, are the living part and parcel of the
words amending the Constitution.

You can read here for a full explanation. Scroll down to under the box
stating the 'rights of proportionality' and the paragraph listed below..
if you want the "quick" explanation.

"In short, this legislation is completely and obviously unconstitutional, and yet it will survive judicial review, simply because the present Constitutional order cannot survive without it. It is impossible to have a regular transfer of power, where the architects of power are going to be arrested upon leaving office. If their architecture remains behind they must remain at liberty."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

[Spiffarino]

140. Better to spend their time undoing the damage

Pelosi has a chance to stop the Little President* dead in his tracks and make him look like the petty dipshit he is. He's used to getting his way. Watch what happens when he doesn't. Hilarity is sure to ensue.


* Kudos to Gore Vidal

[Dover]

210. You can't impeach someone who was never a legitimate president

to begin with. Criminal trials seem more appropriate lest he and Cheney and the rest just burrow into their holes to rise again another day.

[madokie]

2. If I was her I would deny it too, at this point in time, lotsa tomorrows

I could just see how kkkarl would spin that

[pat_k]

30. Silence and complicity with War Criminals wouldn't phase kkkarl. . .

. . .it should phase us.

Standing up for principle only when you think it is safe is contemptible.

The American people disdain hypocrisy. They respect strength.

The mythical backlash beast is just that. A myth.

[kenny blankenship]

3. It would be better just to keep * under perpetual investigation anyway

And 2 years would barely scratch the surface even if criminal inquiries were all they had on their legislative agenda through Nov. 2008.

[pat_k]

32. Which is what they are terrified of -- and will pay a little "visit"

. . .to the WH to escape.

But there is no escape. If this nation ever returns to sanity, they will be punished for their crimes.

Removal from office is a defensive measure -- completely independent of bringing them to justice.

[Pharaoh]

4. This is pure politics

why whip up that hornets nest when we just need to wait till november when we can do it.....?

[pat_k]

37. Because, if Democratic leaders wait, they look like cowards and hypocrites

And the perception would be accurate.

The only thing keeping your mouth shut until it is "safe" accomplishes is to confirm the perception that the Democratic Party is weak and unprincipled.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Unless You Have Sixty Seven Senators Impeachment Is A Waste Of Time

eom

[pat_k]

39. So, you would not try to rescue a drowning child because your success. . .

. . .was not guaranteed?

[onenote]

182. no I'd keep him afloat until he could be rescued, not drown with him

If the Democrats aggressively pursued a impeachment in 2007, they would be perceived as a partisan effort that would (i) re-energize the demoralized repubs and (2) give the repubs a great platform to put Democrats on the defensive in 2008, rather than the other way around. At the end of this point, you'll find statements by Feingold and Wellstone from the Clinton impeachment. Those quotes would be plastered all over the airwaves by the repubs. Pursuing impeachment when there is no chance of getting it done is like a person who can't swim jumping in the water to 'save' a drowning child. All you get is two people drowning. The smarter approach is to get a life preserver and throw it the child so he/she can stay afloat until a rescue is possible. In this case, the life preserver is the Democrats ability to conduct hearings and push their agenda so that in 2008 the rescue can be completed by electing an even bigger Democratic majority in both the House and Senate and a Democratic president.



"Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999

"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

"Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

"I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999

[pat_k]

188. The bottom line is inescapable. Each day they are silent, they are. . .

. . complicit.

Keeping a child afloat is protecting the child from further harm. You ARE attempting to rescue the child, even though help may never come.

That is precisely what members of Congress are sworn to do. Take up the fight to defend the Constituion against further harm, even if they may fail.

This is not about removing "an unacceptable President." It is about putting a stop to the destruction of the treasured principles and institutions we established in our constitution.

It is about restoring the "the harmonious working of the Constitution" and redeeming the United States in the eyes of the world by throwing out a despot.

When a cop pulls over a drunk driver ("Turn off the engine. Get out of the car.") he is protecting the public from an out-of-control menace by taking away his power to do harm. He is fulfilling his first and foremost duty, to protect the public he is sworn to protect.

The executive branch is being driven by an out of control President and Vice President hell-bent on grabbing evermore Unconstitutional power to themselves and nullifying the legitimate actions of our judiciary and Congress. Just as a police force is sworn to protect the public, members of Congress are sworn to defend the Constitution.

The oath they take is an individual oath. The choice is an individual choice. Each one faces the decision. Speak out, tell the truth about Bush and Cheney, and call on their colleagues to use the weapon we gave them to defend us from destruction from within.

The choice is inescapable: Duty or Silent Complicity.

Congresswoman Pelosi has chosen a course even worse than silence. She made a commitment to dereliction of duty when she "explicitly ruled out impeachment of Mr. Bush . . .'Absolutely,' she said. 'We don’t have time for that'" (citation in the original post).

She has told America "Nothing to see here. Everything's running "harmoniously". We are "moving forward" business as usual."

She has declared her intent to tolerate the intolerable.

[Festivito]

161. Wrong. It stops him from pardoning those involved.

Plus it tells the world that we take our governing seriously.

[rodeodance]

7. Dems need to get IN first-----then ....well.

[pat_k]

40. Why? Why be complicit now?

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime.

They need look no further than their vote for the Authorization to Use Force.

They are still paying for that.

They will pay dearly for their silence now.

[liberal N proud]

8. They will be too busy undoing the things the republicans have f#!ked up

over the last 6 years, actually 12 years since Newt's Contract On America took effect.

[rodeodance]

11. I still want Jr;s 'legacy' to show he was impeached. YUP

[pat_k]

108. . . .and to show our kids that We the People stood up and took back

. . our country.

It would be an example and a warning. They may face another usurper and must be willing to fight for impeachment and removal, whatever the feared consequences or rationalizations for inaction.

"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"

[pat_k]

42. How? If they don't challenge "rule by signing statement". . .

. . .how can they undo a darn thing?

If they do not stand up and say "The People of the United States DO NOT tolerate torture" how can they even begin to rebuild the international bridges burned?"

[pat_k]

192. How to you clean up the mess, when the mess makers continue making

. . messes.

The notion of "undoing" but leaving the destroyers in power strikes me as being the same as trying to renovate a burning house.

[pat_k]

193. Oops. Mistakenly replied more than once.

[kstewart33]

9. I agree with her.

We don't have time to impeach him. We've got too many problems to waste time impeaching someone whom just about everyone knows is one of the worst presidents in our history.

Will impeaching him solve any of our critical problems? Iraq? The deficit? Soaring health care costs? The dire need for conservation? No. And Pelosi knows it.

That's what we should be focusing on. Getting something done that makes a difference to people.

Sorry to disagree, but this is a waste of time.

[Pharaoh]

14. of course we impeach him!

But you wait till next month when we controll congress.

[pat_k]

48. Wait til it is "safe" to open our mouths? Deny our intentions?

. . .How is that anything but hypocrasy and cowardice?

[MissWaverly]

28. what about the signing statement, can't he continue to rule as 1

number uno, the decider and rewrite every bill as he pleases as they come across his desk.
It doesn't matter that the congress says no water boarding if he changes everything,
how is this situation workable in the long run w/o impeachment.

[pat_k]

46. I ask again. How do they accomplish anything under a rogue . . .

. . .regime that is dismantling the institutions we established in our Constitution; that refuses to enforce existing law as required by oath; that nullifies the laws that are passed with signing statements; that turns the world against us by making the United States a War Criminal nation that sanctions and uses torture?

Amd what about We the People? When we are so willing to abandon our most treasured principles because we "don't have time" to fight for them, what do we become?

We face extraordinary danger. Our constitution has been destroyed. A lawless syndicate is weilding the massive power of the American Presidency. How does it reflect on us when we are happy to see the men and women who represent us pretend it is all "politics as usual."

If we fail to demand impeachment and removal we are saying "No extraordinary action required. Nothing to worry about. Allowing them to continue dismantling our constitutional democracy is AOK by us. We'll wait until we can vote them out."

Well, it is NOT AOK. Every day more damage is done. The only way to stop it is demand their removal from power -- not tomorrow. Not later. Now.

[longship]

10. Nixon's case took years, too.

The Senate Watergate Committee, which blew the whole thing wide open was convened fifteen months before Nixon's resignation. If Nixon had hung in there, it would have taken some amount of time for the whole impeachment plus trial in the Senate process to unfold. Certainly two years is a conservative estimate.

Pelosi may very well be correct.

However, notice that she does *not* say that hearings aren't going to happen. They will. And once that train starts down the tracks, there may be no stopping it.

http://www.watergate.info

[pat_k]

50. We pride ourselves on being rational, but believing we are omniscient. . .

. . .and know how this would play out is irrational.

Our fears or hopes about how events may unfold are irrelevant.

It could play out like Nixon's. Bush and Cheney could resign in a week. An impeachment effort may never get off the ground.

None of those feared or hoped for outcomes excuses them from opening their mouths and demanding action. Every member must make a personal choice: Silence or Complicity.

Whatever we think the outcome, when principle demands action, failure to act is a betrayal of principle.

If she thinks hearings may set an unstoppable train in motion, then she is lying when she unequivocally asserts that a Democratic Congress will not impeach.

If she does not believe Bush and Cheney have abused power in a way that will start that unstoppable train rolling, then she should not have made assertions that Bush's actions undermine the fabric of our Constitution.

It is one way or the other. Either the Constitution is in grave danger and they must take defensive action, or it is not and they can go on business as usual.

The Democratic leadership is trying to have it both ways -- and in doing so, they send a morally-confused "message" that resonates with no one.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Draining The Swamp With A Teaspoon

We'd expect nothing less from a leader of the Battlin' Congressional Dems. Their cries of "We suck less - so who else are you gonna vote for, shmuck?" echo through the land.

[cali]

15. If Pelosi did anything but what she's doing

she'd be a fool. Nothing will turn out voters for the pukes like the promise of impeachment.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. We'll Have To Agree To Disagree

It seems to me that the kid-gloves triangulation approach has resulted in little beyond Democrats getting our asses kicked in every election since 1994. Even now, assuming that we do well in this election, it'll have taken a ruinous war that we were lied into, flagrant violation of the Constitution, torture, and all manner of criminal misdeeds by the Rethugs.

Remember when Dems won elections regularly? They had vertebrae back then - that's why they won.

[cali]

53. OK,

let's agree to disagree about Pelosi, but I just can't let your final comment about the reason dems used to win is because they had spine back in the ever mythical good old days. Dems won for a variety of reasons, but that's not one that figures largely in the formula. For the better part of 40 years dems held the House. Now Congressional districts have been drawn to a republican advantage. The country has changed, both ideologically and demographically. And there are plenty of other reasons, but i don't buy the line that dems used to have spine and now they don't. Pure myth and opinion.

[MindMatter]

149. Dems are losing elections

not because they won't promise to impeach anybody if they get a chance. Dems have been losing elections because they have utterly failed to lay out a clear vision of the principles and agenda of the programs they ARE willing to fight for. For so long, they have seemed to be happy to point the finger at Republicans follies. That is a losing strategy. Hell, possibly the biggest Presidential failure of all times has been ongoing in Iraq, and even that does not lose elections for the Republicans.

At the end of the day, you need to have something constructive to offer. And the more consistently the entire party articultes that, the better. This year, we are hearing a little bit of consistency on things like prescription drug reform, but really, there is no unified message.

A few weeks ago, one could find a set of fairly clear messages front and center on the democrats.org website. This was precisely what is needed at this critical moment. However, there has been practically no follow-through to help these messages stick. And now the material is entirely missing from the main page. Just vanished. You can find it if you go dig into the third menu item. That doesn't exactly show a lot of commitment to these ideas.

[pat_k]

153. The "failed to lay out a clear vision" is meme we hear parroted.

. . that just doesn't hold up.

The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak

Contrary to what many Democratic strategists believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security. It is rooted in:

1. The reticence that centrists seem to have when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers, Democratic leaders seek to "investigate" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.")

2. The tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?

. . .
A person's greatest strength can also be their greatest weakness. The same can be true of groups.

So, what about the reality-based community? (aka "our side," anti-fascists, or whatever your preferred label).

We value reason and rationality. We pride ourselves on being realistic and pragmatic. But as we fight for the soul of the nation, too often it is the things we consider our greatest strengths that render us impotent. . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2302569&mesg_id=2302569">More

[pat_k]

57. Why? Why wouldn't nationalizing the election and providing

. . .voters an outlet for their anger at Bush win the Democratic Party far MORE elections?

Republicans are terrified that we can successfully make the election about Bush. What better way than to demand impeachment?

Why wouldn't speaking the truth clearly and accusing the administration of its crimes motivate countless voters who had given up on politics by demonstrating commitment to principle they rarely see? Why wouldn't the Democratic Party get a surge of support by backing up their words with REAL action.

There is no more reason to believe the worst than to believe the best. We pride ourselves on reason and realism, but too often mistake pessimism for "realism."

And since when did we start listening to Rove and Paul Weyrich? Everything out of their mouths is propaganda. Why are we sucking it up?

Do you really think there people on the reactionalry right who believe Pelosi's assurances when the leaders of the reactionary right are telling them the opposite? The "backlash" isn't coming from them. So where is it supposed to be coming from?

Even if the mythical backlash beast strikes, how does the rationalization that "they might fight back" excuse us from standing up and fighting for our principles?

When principle demands action, it is a betrayal of principle to refuse to act.

[cali]

70. First of all, even if we have a majority

in the House with a 20 vote margin (unlikely), there won't be impeachment. There's barely time to mount it. Investigations will take 8 to 10 months, and there's no way they'd get started until March or so. Now, I'm all for investigations leading where they lead, but even if the House did impeach, there's no way to get a conviction in the Senate where you need 67 Senators. And frankly, regardless of what some say, I don't think Americans want another impeachment. In any case, it's a stupid thing to campaign on. Campaign on investigations, and the dems are doing that. Should, as I expect, rock solid evidence of impeachable offences be produced, then it's perfectly reasonable for the dems to say that they have no choice but to move forward on impeachment.

[pat_k]

83. It is a prima fascia case and very easy to convey. Feingold did it. ..

. . the rest of them just need to open a mouth.

[paulk]

96. so....

who else are you gonna vote for?

[pat_k]

100. What does lobbying them to stand up have to do with voting?

[paulk]

104. what does your post have to do with mine?

:shrug:

[pat_k]

106. Misread as "So. . who ya gonna vote for". . .

. . .and then fired back an ill-considered and defensive question. Apologies.

It seemed to me that your question carried an implication that I wouldn't vote for a candidate I expressed anger toward. I can aggressively lobby a candidate to defend the constitution and still do whatever I can to make sure that candidate prevails over their Republican opponent, so my vote and my lobbying efforts are not usually connected.

There was a connection between my support for candidates and their position on impeachment in the primaries and I contributed to, and volunteered for, a few of the Democratic candidates who spoke out for impeachment. The primaries are behind us. In the general, I'll be votimg Democratic and am giving what I can in time and money to Democratic candidates in "toss up" races.

[greenman3610]

13. Investigate till the Republicans are begging to string the bastard up

themselves, just to end the bleeding.

After watching "Iraq for Sale", you can see
how there is room for a lot of people to
see a lot of jail time.

[pat_k]

59. Spot on! Many on the right revel in accusation and punishment. . .

. . .and are already predisposed turn on Bush by their growing anger at him.

[LiberalArkie]

18. I think at any time he felt threatened, who know what * would do.

That has to weigh very heavy on their minds. And what did the NSA drag up. But mainly what would GWB do?

[pat_k]

60. The possible consequences of action. . .

. . .are not relevant to the decision to act when principle demands it.

You may be right. Just as the danger of battle weighs on the mind of a soldier on the eve of battle.

But, like the members of our armed services, they have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The only way members of Congress can defend right now is to fight to remove the massive power of the American Presidency from Bush. We gave them to power to impeach to rescue the nation from destruction from within.

Whatever they fear Bush and Cheney may do in response, they must make a choice. Duty or Complicity.

They can fight for the principles they are committed to, or refuse to fight and betray those principles.

[Pab Sungenis]

19. You don't have time for that?

We don't have time for you, Nancy. Step aside, let Fightin' Jack take the Speaker's chair.

[pat_k]

61. Hear! Hear!

[AtomicKitten]

21. Pelosi has made it crystal clear they will do the oversight

the Republics have failed to do and will instigate investigations of all that has not passed the sniff test. She has also said that if investigations lead to impeachment, so be it.

No Democrat is about to hand a talking point to the GOP - that the Dems will impeach Junior - something the GOP is dying to use in the upcoming election to rally their base.

[pat_k]

63. Her language in this case was unequivocal -- no impeachment.

. . .If she thinks the investigations will lead to impeachment, she is lying when she attempts to assure the mythical "backlash beast" that a Democratic Congress would do no such thing.

The American people can be duped, but they smell hypocrisy and disdain it. And they are sick and tired of politicians who try to have it "both ways." When she says "no impeachment" she makes it impossible to accuse Bush of his crimes. If they do accuse Bush and Cheney they must do something about it. If they try to tip toe around the truth, they are just being mealy-mouthed politicians (and they would be about as effective if they just said "blah, blah, goodness, yada yada, stop badness.")

I can't help but wonder who she thinks she is "assuring." The people on the reactionary right listen to the Paul Weyrichs and the Roves of the world. Even if they hear her words -- and most won't -- they don't believe her. The mythical backlash is not coming from these folks. Where do they think is would come from?

Everything out of Rove's and Weyrich's mouth is propaganda. Why are our Democratic leaders sucking it up?

[AtomicKitten]

65. it's called strategy

What the Dems are doing, i.e., not giving the GOP a talking point to rally their base in promising impeachment, is more important than satisfying the blood lust of the blogosphere as a quick fix. I am content knowing Pelosi has promised investigations and has said if they lead to impeachment, so be it. It's a means to an end. The majority must be attained first and I support not jeopardizing that. Then all bets are off; let the investigations begin.

[pat_k]

84. It's good strategy to be complicit with crime?

. . .you would think they would have learned their lesson. They are paying a high price for their vote for the Authorization to Force -- another bit of fear-inspired strategy.

[AtomicKitten]

94. ah, come on

I'll give you snaps for drama but is that difficult to understand that once the Dems have the majority, the investigations will begin in earnest? Ixnay on the impeachment talk for now will help Dems achieve a majority and that will yield the subpoena power required to fuel the investigations. One foot in front of the other.

[pat_k]

98. Each day they keep the truth "under their hats" is another day of

. . .complicity.

Had they spoken out last month, it is unlikely that they would have passed the War Criminals Protection Act.

Had they spoken out a year ago, they would probably have filibustered Alito for promoting the treasonous fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive.

Had they spoken out in 2003, the Presidential election would have been a whole different ball game.

Who knows what horrors another month of "don't worry we won't impeach anyone!" will bring?

[Rose Siding]

206. Very true. No prosecutor lays out the charges before the investigation

It would be nothing but dishonest and impotent grandstanding.

[LostInAnomie]

22. Subpoena, subpoena, subpeona...

Use that power to investigate those bastards until the country demands impeachment. If we move to impeach before the country is ready public opinion would turn on us like it did against Repukes when they impeached Clinton.

Get the facts out and the public demand will it... with the exception of freeper retards.

[pat_k]

66. The facts are out. We know all we need to know. They just need to . . .

. . .open their mouths and tell people.

Accusation must precede investigation.

It is not so hard. Feingold did it.

Every time Bush and Cheney assert the Un-American and Un-Constitutional notion of a unitary authoritarian executive, they prove their commitment to fascist principle, and they prove they are a clear and present danger to our constitutional democracy that must be removed.

When Pelosi says "No Impeachment" she makes it almost impossible for Democratic leaders to speak the truth and accuse. She muzzles herself. She is trying to muzzle her colleagues.

[pinto]

24. I agree with Pelosi. There's plenty more effective things a Dem

House and Senate can spend two years on, across the legislative agenda, than an Impeachment proceeding. I'd rather see a range of inquiries into the the billions squandered in Iraq, the FEMA fiasco, the Abramoff money for influence trails, etc. etc. Dismantle the Republican machine at the operational level. Exert majority rule in an arena that will yield substantive benefits to Americans, overturn the most egregious assaults fostered in the Republican Congress and isolate Bushco into a lame duck corner as much as possible.

Even a quick (ie, under two years) successful impeachment would only trade Bush for Cheney. That would seem a Pyhrric victory, at best.

[pat_k]

69. And give Bush and Cheney cover for nuking the Constitution?

If they do not demand impeachment and removal, that is precisely what they are doing.

They are giving the War Criminals in the WH cover. ("If what we were doing was unconstitutional, the opposition would be demanding impeachment. They are not. We are right. The President of the United States is a dictator -- aka "unitary authoritarian executive").

In giving cover, they make themselves accessories.

Sure. Do all those other investigations, but if they sidestep impeachment, we will be crushed by the elephant they are pushing into the closet.

I just can't fathom how any agenda that deliberately leaves the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of a rogue syndicate could be considered a "positive agenda"

[pinto]

85. What would change with Cheney as President? The rogue syndicate

would be more blatant and identifiable, perhaps, but I see no other benefit.

I favor cutting off the syndicate from the operative level up. They've had a free ride, and collusion, from the Republican Congress. I really believe our most effective response, if we get control of the House and/or Senate is in the legislative arena.

I understand the impetus to hold Bush personally accountable, but to be honest, I think he remains a front for a cabal that has to be rooted out at the mid level. And the way to do that is calling those mid-level and Cabinet-level players, ie the Administration machine, to account. An impeachment, while ethically justifiable and appropriate, may not really be justice in the largest sense, or effective from a Democratic point of view. An impeachment may very well have the unintended consequence of providing them cover, as you mention, while we go after their poster boy.

[pat_k]

95. Cheney must be impeached for asserting the fascist fantasy of a unitary. .

. . . authoritarian executive. He is as guilty as Bush (if not more so) for their Un-Constitutional power grab.

[pinto]

97. I agree on Cheney's responsibility. He's the player.

[pinto]

121. And I still disagree with you on impeachment.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

156. Thanks For Saving Me Some Typing. You Summed It Up Perfectly.

If we succeed in regaining the majority in both houses of congress, we've effectively neutered much of King george's ability to wreak destructive havoc anyway. Our time would definitley be best served in the ways you stated. I don't think the important part is impeachment. I think the important part is the ability to have real investigations as well as the ability to create legislation that gets real things done for Americans.

[pat_k]

158. I respond to these rationalizations in most of my posts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

159. I Saw Your Gazillion Posts. I Don't Agree With You.

I think what Nancy said was just fine, and I agree with her position for the reasons I stated and referenced.

:hi:

[katsy]

31. Pelosi is very smart to focus on getting things done.

If she accomplishes the stated goals in 100 days, voter confidence in a Democratic Congress will soar and help us in 08.

We're going to take Congress now because of gop mistakes and corruption. We're only going to going to grow our majority only if we enact legislation that benefits America.

Congress will exercise oversight and it wouldn't surprise me at all if bushco* caves in & signs Democratic legislation (without signing statements) under threat of impeachment.

[pat_k]

71. How can you threaten impeachment if you declare "no impeachment"

How can any agenda that deliberately leaves the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of a rogue syndicate be considered a "positive agenda"?

When your house is burning, do you start a renovation project? The nation's House is the institutions and principles established in our Constitution. It is burning and we are hearing promises to start a renovation project instead of making some attempt to put out the flames.

The Executive Branch is not enforcing the good laws that already exist. They are nullifying anything decent that does get passed with signing statements.

Every day, Bush and Cheney wield the massive power of the American Presidency to steal billions from the American people to line the pockets of their cronies and gather ever more power to themselves -- and everyday adds dollars and decades to the burden on our childern. Every day they tear down the international bridges that are the heart of our security.

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit with crime.

They look no further than their vote for the Authorization to Use Force. They continue to pay a political price for that one. And we are all paying a price so large that is almost impossible to comprehend.

Do you really want the leaders of the Democratic Party to be complicit with the crimes committed by this administration -- both those that are already known, and those that are yet to be uncovered.

[katsy]

75. why would bushco* believe Pelosi when she says no impeachment?

She doesn't have to say a thing.

bushco will have zero power.

[dmosh42]

165. I agree

Some of us who will vote Democratic are counting on our victory too soon. Just the idea that if our party gains control, they will spend their time seeking an impeachment, turns many voters off. I believe that once we have control, then some investigations should go forward to see what can be documented as capitol crimes, and if feasible, do the impeachment proceedings. And from what I understand, the other sleazeball, Cheney would then become president. So I think Pelosi is being shrewd in her statements right now.

[eauclaireliberal]

35. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Not impeaching gives a message to the right wing thugs that the president and his puppetmasters are above the law.

[pat_k]

72. Would question "damned if you do". . .but spot on WRT "damned if you don't

[Jcrowley]

44. Conyers says the same

Don't Worry, Democrats Won't Impeach Bush, Democrat Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats and liberal advocacy groups have been talking about impeaching President George W. Bush for months. But when Republicans say the president indeed may be impeached if Democrats regain control of Congress, they're just trying to scare people, a Democratic operative says.

In an op-ed column in Thursday's Detroit Free Press, Robert Weiner, a former press secretary to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), accused Republicans of "trying to create hysteria about the likelihood of impeaching President Bush."

According to Weiner, "Impeachment is not on Conyers' current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda."

(In a Democratic House, Conyers would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and thus a key player in deciding to impeach, or bring charges against, the president.)

Weiner (who also worked for the Clinton White House) says Conyers "has told me directly: 'I'm not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country's attention from issues that need to be addressed.'"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200609/POL20060921a.html

[pat_k]

77. I know. It feels like being punched in the stomach by your bodyguard. . .

. . .He is the person many have come to rely on to stand up for truth, for the consent of the governed, and for the institutions and principles we established in our constitution. His failure to commit to the fight to remove Bush and Cheney is more keenly felt because we expect more.

[RC]

45. Forget bu$h & cheney

Take out karl rove and the election is ours.

[pat_k]

73. Win election to what? With the constitution in tatters . . .

... and the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of a rogue syndicate, elective offices have no foundation.

[RC]

110. See Post # 64

[bobbolink]

47. Yeah, it's only our Constitution and our democracy, Nancy.

How much do we have to lose before you friggin' get it???
:nuke:

[pat_k]

76. Truth has a power of it's own. When a person learns the truth, they do not

. . .do not unlearn it. The numbers go one way.

In that I find the hope to keep lobbying them to Wake Up and Stand Up!

[bobbolink]

88. Remember what RFK, Jr said? "75% of Dems are corrupt"

And, after all these years of observing, I think he's right. (Besides, he's closer to the "insider" info than I am hehehhe)

Given that, I don't hold out a lot of hope.

It's so discouraging to me that there are so many Dems, right here on this thread, who agree with her. Our poor constitution just isn't that important to many, any more.

I hope you're right. I really do!

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

49. John Conyers for Majority Leader and (possible) Speaker of the House!

Failure to prosecute these war criminals is abject cowardice!

[bobbolink]

52. THanks for the strong words, cuz that's exactly what it is.

But, then, it's only our Constitution, yeah?

:nuke:

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. I wouldn't tell the sheeple the Dems plan an Impeachment either. It should

be held close to the chest and I HOPE that's what they're doing. Why would they tell ANYONE they plan to Impeach BEFORE the election? That would put off many voters and we need all the votes we can get.

She may also think that there's so much corruption, the investigations may last over 2 freakin' years. THEN, they can IMPEACH. That's my take on it anyway.

[Justice Is Comin]

64. I like that kick in the teeth approach myself.

Nothing could be sweeter than to pulverize the rapelicans once they can't do anything about it after the election. The bitching will be sweet music to my ears.

The first thing we have to prepare legislation for is to rescind all the power bush took for himself. The congress can draft any legislation which rescinds a previous bill. This is exactly what we want to do--restore all the protections bush thought he could get away with by stealth signing statements.

The clear provision that signing statements MUST be henceforth reviewed by the congress should be the number ONE bill. bush will have to then veto or sign it. He couldn't write a signing statement when the bill is about not writing signing statements. With a majority in congress, I bet anything we would then have the votes to override any veto.

It puts him right where we want him while the investigations are going on.

Also, with a majority, the bills would be passed, he would have to deal with them again and the republicans would not want to be labeled with protecting him again after we control congress. It would be political suicide.

Then the investigations will provide all the necessary outrage from the American people just like the Foley thing has and impeachment or resignation will be the word of the day.

My Dear Abby fees are negotiable.

[pat_k]

86. Keeping the truth that their sovereignty has been usurped from . . .

. . .the electorate is really something you'd advocate?

So much for the principle of consent. Nuked by Bush and Cheney. Ignored by those sworn to support and defend the Constitution that We the People established to form a more perfect union.

Not my picture of the path to redeeming our national soul.

[Justice Is Comin]

99. WE play the republican game.

Believe me I have to bite my tongue too, Pelosi drives me crazy. But this is going to have a happy ending.

Have faith and here's a little happy dust for you in the meantime to carry you over...ploop ploop.

[pat_k]

119. We already have the document that trumps his attempts to usurp. . .

. . .power: the Constitution and the power of impeachment we vested in Congress in that document.

The balance of power is not equally divided. When we vested the power to impeach in Congress, we put a big fat thumb on the scales in favor of the institution through which we express our will.

Fighting for impeachment and removal is step one in re-asserting our collective sovereignty. Impeachment is how we say "You broke our common contract and abused the power entrusted to you; we are enforcing the original terms and taking that power from you."

Impeachment is a defensive act -- not just against past action, but against current and future violations.

At whatever level, when civil officials in the executive branch or the judiciary invoke legalism and cynical abuse of their power to pervert the intent of our laws, impeachment is the mechanism by which we trump all legalisms and re-assert the INTENT of our laws. Our voice trumps black letter law.

Any delay to fight for the impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney is a failure to defend the Constitution -- even if the delay is to take steps to undo previous destruction.

As long as Bush and Cheney wield the massive power of the American Presidency, the devastation of our constitutional democracy continues (more dollars stolen from our pockets to line the pockets of cronies; more dollars and decades added to the burden of debt on our children; continued dismantling of the entities that enforce and execute the laws we pass; more corruption of our election systems by a corrupt justice department; growing disdain for the U.S. throughout the world. . . the list is endless).

I am all for passing legislation that nullifies every piece of legislation he signed, but we can't start cleaning up the mess until we have removed the number 1 (Bush) and number 2 (Cheney) mess makers.

Similarly, indicting and prosecuting them for the crimes they have committed is independent of impeachment.

(BTW. It will be more possible nullify his every act in one fell swoop when we expose the truth about the stolen Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. When the nation confronts that hard reality, we may find we have more than enough political will to declare the entire Bush Presidency null and void.)

[pat_k]

78. Why do you believe it would "put voters off" -- Because Rove and Weyrich

. . say so?

Because the pund-idiots say so?

Why would we pay any attention to their propaganda? If anything the fact they are saying it is probably the best proof that the opposite is true.

They are terrified that we can successfully make this election about Bush, that we can nationalize it. What better way to fulfill their worst nightmares than to accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes and demand impeachment and removal?

[in_cog_ni_to]

87. Because it would?

The Democrats need to take over the House, do investigations, get ALL the corruption exposed to the sheeple who have been spoon-fed FAUX NEWS for the last 6 years, open their eyes to what's been going on (they aren't politically aware...remember FAUX NEWS) and THEN Impeach the bastard. I don't think for one minute the Democrats in the House don't plan to impeach. They just don't want to give any fodder to the repukes BEFORE the election. AFTER they take back the House...shit will hit the fan.

[pat_k]

101. Evidence for Weyrich's "turn voters against" assertion?

[rman]

62. So first you kept your powder dry and now you don't have time to use it

Isn't that just great.

[pat_k]

79. Spot on! The absurdity is self-evident

[Jack Rabbit]

68. The Democrats really don't have time for much else

If we, as a nation, are going to even hope to regain the trust and admiration of the world at large after the dark nightmare of the Bush years, we must takes steps to punish the war criminals.

That can only start with the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

[Golden Raisin]

74. A plague on both their houses.

I wish we could vote them ALL out (Dems and Repubs) and start from scratch with newly elected people not immersed in and breathing the polluted air in the rarified bizarro-world inside the Beltway. Except for a tiny handful of exceptions, they all make me sick.

[cynatnite]

80. If they win, I don't expect them to start looking for ways to impeach...

Subpoena, get the hearings, find the evidence and then impeach.

They shouldn't plan on an impeachment, but you can bet they're not ruling it out either. :evilgrin:

[pat_k]

82. It's a prima fascia case. Just accuse and start making it right now. (nt)

[Imagevision]

81. non-veto-proof majority, now that's music to my ears, ya-cha-cha!!!!!

[antonialee839]

91. Right, we don't have time for that, throw them all directly into

prison and start the waterboarding.

[mentalsolstice]

92. I Agree With Nance

Impeachment will drag on...there's no way we'll get the hoodlums out before 2008. If the Dems won back one or both Houses, I'd like to see them use their efforts toward getting our troops back home safely, and rebuilding our image overseas, and using investigations toward such whenever the admin tries to block their way. By doing this...it could provide encouragement for the war crimes tribunal to prosecute these assholes. I think that's the only way we're going to get satisfaction is watching BushCo led out in handcuffs and orange jumpsuits

[pat_k]

154. I don't see how we can begin to rebuild our image overseas

. . .if the we do not unequivocally reject the Un-American and Unconstitutional actions of Bush and Cheney by demanding impeachment.

No matter how long you might think it would drag out, why would you hesitate to call on Congress to use the precise tool we put in their hands to repair this type of breach? Impeachment is how we say "You broke our common contract and abused the power entrusted to you; we are enforcing the original terms and taking that power from you."

The "drag on" prediction is as likely to be wrong as right. He could be out in a day once the threat of impeachment becomes real. The Republicans don't want to see their crimes exposed and discussed day-after-day. Bush and Cheney could get the same sort of visit Nixon did ("Hey, you're toast. Pack it in.") Such a visit could come much quicker than anyone can imagine.

When a cop pulls over a drunk driver ("Turn off the engine. Get out of the car.") they are not just going after a criminal; they are protecting the public from the menace of an out of control driver. That is the FIRST responsibility.

Just as the police are sworn to protect the public, Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution from destruction from within. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them.

(Would you want the police to "skip" efforts to apprehend a serial killer because they thought it would be too drawn out?)

[conscious evolution]

102. War crimes committee?

Have Congress create a commission to uncover evidence of war crimes.With evidence turned over to the International War Crimes Tribunal.
T he same time the rest of Congress can work at overturning the policies of this administration.
This would create two fronts for the repukes to fight.It would also show that DEmocratic party has balls and that we stand for the principles we hold dear.

Principles such as Democracy
The US Constitution.
Rule of law
Concern for the welfare and dignity of Humanity
Democracy

just to name a few.
I know there is probably only a snowball in hells chance of this happening but I think it could work.If enough people supported this as an alternative to imchimpment.

[pat_k]

157. For me the tasks are (1) Impeach and Remove, (2) Turn over to the Hague

. . . and I don't care how small the chances, I will keep making the case for action on moral grounds.

Don't Americans pride themselves on their morality?

Perhaps if our leaders started speaking the simple truths and moral principles, they would hit on that magic "message" the strategists have been seeking.

And just think of it, it was there all the time. Truth. Principle. Act when we are sworn to. Take up the good fights, come what may.

Could it really be so easy to win hearts and minds? (Yes, it can be that easy.)

[conscious evolution]

173. Impeach and remove

is my first choice also.My idea is more of a plan B in case the new leadership to be doesn't want to pursue impeachment.

[pat_k]

174. Whether or not we can motivate them, I would like to see citizen lobbyists

. . .confront them on impeachment first.

I'm screwing up my own courage to fax Lautenberg's and Menendez's scheduler a request for a meeting (amd probably end up with a staffer) to talk about Feingold's Accusation/Verdict/Censure resolution (which is the immediate action a member of the Senate can take to put some truth about this administration out there).

Unless the conversation played out in a way that it made sense to bring up the necessity to turn them over to the Hague, I wouldn't raise it at this point. As members of Congress, their most immediate duty is to fulfill their oath to defend the Constitution -- and that is what I would be after (by trying to kick off telephone or in person dialog with staffers by asking the sorts of questions I put to Congresswoman Pelosi in the letter in the original post.)

My Rep. is Ferguson. Email and phone is enough to register my call for action (so he can't pretend no one in his district wants to see Bush and Cheney impeached).

[omega minimo]

103. They "don't have time" to protect & defend the Constitution?

:wow:

[Jcrowley]

105. Back to what omega minimo says

This is really the crux of the matter. Regardless of whether they "have time" to or consider it "politically expedient" the fact is that it is their sworn duty to uphold the constitution in regards to impeachment. They have sworn obligations which legally bind them.

I recall an interview on Dem Now where Kucinich was on with Rattner, this was two years back, and Kucinich was also saying it would be a bad political move to try to impeach Bush. Well Rattner backed him into a corner with the explicit wording that stated that it was the very real legal obligation of the congressman to begin the enquiry, without care for the end result, for impeachment proceedings. Kucinich even granted that Bush did commit impeachable offenses but thought that Bush would get sympathy votes if the Dems began an enquiry. This was before the 2004 election.

[pat_k]

160. Thank you! I am surprised at the number of . . .

. . .folks who seem to go right past this simple truth.

This is not rocket science. It is frightening how lost the simple truths and moral principles can get behind a wall of rationalizations and "conventional wisdom."

But, the set of rationalizations is limited. The same ones come up over and over. (We heard the SAME things said about the Alito filibuster, January 6th. . ).

If we can clobber those "core" rationalizations, we will have gone a LONG way toward transforming politics as we know it.

[magellan]

115. This is why I'm so enthusiastic about voting for the Dems

:sarcasm: :mad:

[Disturbed]

116. John Conyers has already forwarded the case for Impeachment

of Busholini.Pelosi should not be in any leasership position. She is weak.

[pat_k]

120. Actually, I remain enthused. At least I know we have a shot at getting . .

. . .through.

No matter how infected they are by irrational beltway "conventional wisdom," members of the Democratic Party still believe in our constitutional democracy (which is about more than the collective will of the majority, it is about limits on power and protecting individual rights).

They are reachable. Citizens can lobby them and can have an impact. This is a BIG deal.

This is NOT the case with Republican movers and shakers and the officials who follow and support them. They have shown us that they believe their faction has a right to force their will on everyone else. They have shown us that they view top-down authoritarian rule as the natural order and are oblivious to how Unconstitutional and Un-American that "natural order" is.

Yes we need to seek and run better Democratic candidates in primaries, and we need figure out more effective ways to confront those who are in office and inject reality, but I will ALWAYS enthusiastically get behind the Democratic candidate in a General Election. When a member of the Democratic Party occupies an office, our efforts to be heard are not in vain. (Of course, we have to bug the Republicans to so they can't pretend we don't exist, but being heard? Rare indeed.)

[Renew Deal]

117. I think this is the correct message to send.

There is too much to do and impeaching the fool is a waste of the peoples time. I also like the "draning the swamp" analogy. Smart language.

[pat_k]

125. Agree "Draining the swamp" is great, but. . .

. . .you lose me with the notion that impeachment is a waste of time.

When we established our Constitution, we understood the power we were entrusting to our civil officials, and we understood that some would abuse that power to destroy our Constitution from within the executive or judiciary. Impeachment is the remedy we created.

The balance of power is not equally divided. When we vested the power to impeach in Congress, we put a big fat thumb on the scales in favor of the institution through which we express our will.

How can it be a waste of time to call on Congress to use the precise tool we put in their hands to repair this type of breach? Impeachment is how we say "You broke our common contract and abused the power entrusted to you; we are enforcing the original terms and taking that power from you."

Impeachment is a defensive act -- not just against past action, but against current and future damage.

As long as Bush and Cheney wield the massive power of the American Presidency, the devastation of our constitutional democracy continues (more dollars stolen from our pockets to line the pockets of cronies; more dollars and decades added to the burden of debt on our children; continued dismantling of the entities that enforce and execute the laws we pass; more corruption of our election systems by a corrupt justice department; growing disdain for the U.S. throughout the world. . . the list is endless).

Why wouldn't we do everything in our power to remove power from the rogue forces and enlist our fellow Americans in re-asserting their sovereignty?

[Renew Deal]

127. I don't mean that it's a waste of time.

I mean that saying that there are more important things to do is smart language.

I still believe that they will say this now, find a ton of impeachable evidence and go from there.

[pat_k]

129. Whenever they wake up and demand impeachment, I'll be thrilled. . .

. . .but the notion that we have "better things to do" belittles the magnitude of the abuses and destruction of our most treasured principles and institutions. . . and therefore rubs me the wrong way -- big time! (After all I've said here, i guess that's pretty obvious :-)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

122. They will impeach if they're enough people demand it. More than just us.

We alone are not enough to get this done. We will need to have the majority of people in this country to stand with us.

[pat_k]

133. Actually, they do. . .

. . .polls taken quite some time ago showed that a majority of Americans believed Bush should be impeached if he lied to get us into war.

And now a majority (or darn close) believe he lied.

The horrible thing about silence is that when no one gives voice to the anger and accusations seething within the electorate, no one sees or taps into that anger.

I saw this over and over again in Nov-Dec 2004 and Jan 2005. On DFA Conference calls you would have no idea that there were dozens of people on the call until somebody went "off topic" and said, "Hey, what about the stolen election? What about Ohio?" Suddenly a chorus errupted.

Had that one person not "opened the door," the people who were angry about the election would have continued to harbor their anger in silence, and the "moderators" would have no clue that the stolen election was were ALL the energy was.

[lonestarnot]

126. Fuck that! Make time! Somebody better remind her who she

represents!

[rateyes]

131. That's all right....

John Conyers will have time for it, and he'll be overseeing the committee that oversees such things. After the investigation shows the proof of his high crimes, they'll HAVE to impeach the MF.

ITMFA!!!!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

134. My warning to the Democrats: Someone has to go to jail.

This is how the good ole boy network thrives. You let them get away with this, like you let the Iran-Contra people get away, you send a message to all those chaos capitalists that this six year blip is normal and good for the American system. Some Republicans really believe that their role is to raid us every so number of years, and I find that despicable. Send a message. Or we'll find another minority leader.

[pat_k]

136. Impeachment is basic defense. 100% right that Prosecutions MUST follow. ..

. . .You are 100% right.

Even though it may look like a "trial" impeachment is first and foremost a defensive action. ("You are a menace. Take your hands off the wheel. Turn off the engine. Get out of the car.")

First we must address the immediate danger of continued destruction through impeachment, and then you go after them and prosecute for crimes, or turn over to the Hague for judgement.

If they are not accused, judged, and punished there is no crime for these guys. When they express regret, it is always regret for the shame they brought on their office or others by being caught -- no words that demonstrate regret for having committed the crime.

All too often the folks on "our side" just try to "fix the system" instead of going after the wrong-doers.

Systems are driven by individual action. The ONLY way you can fix the system is to say "This behavior will not be tolerated" and the only way to say that is to "make an example" of those who engage in the behavior.

It MUST begin with impeachment, but it MUST NOT end there.

[The Backlash Cometh]

167. "It MUST begin with impeachment, but it MUST NOT end there."

Well spoken.

We are a very fractured country. The only chance that we have to get back to being a united country is to show that we ALL live by the same laws. The laws MUST apply to all of us equally. If the other side gets the idea that they can do things that the Democrats cannot do, they will always feel they represent the REAL America and that breaking the law is their divine right. The double-standard must end here.

This is not the first time that we've been through this with the Republicans. They keep dragging this country down, each time they gain power. It's time to teach them that they must play by the same rules. American rules.

[pat_k]

177. Yes. In addition to protecting from damage, the nation would benefit from

. . .a much needed civics lesson.

I can think of nothing more positive than reminding each other:

• that the Constitution is a contract among ourselves;
• that we yielded NONE of our collective sovereignty to ANY institution we established;
• that we gave NO party to the contract the right to usurp or surrender our collective sovereignty.

Good flows from doing the right thing. But even if there weren't so many rewards, we always come back to the bottom line: When high officials in the Executive or Judiciary are subverting the Construction, our representives in Congress are sworn to act, whatever the consequences. ("Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum" -- "Let Justice Be Done, Though the Heavens Fall")

[The Backlash Cometh]

199. Back to basics.

It would be a good idea to give the Republicans a refresher civic's lesson. Yes.

[mmonk]

138. So why am I voting again?

[pat_k]

183. No matter how infected they are by irrational beltway

. . ."conventional wisdom," most members of the Democratic Party still believe in our constitutional democracy (which is about more than the collective will of the majority, it is about limits on power and protecting individual rights).

They are reachable. Citizens can lobby them and can have an impact. This is a BIG deal.

Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated their believe their small and righteous faction can and should force their will on everyone else, and they have proven that they will not hesitate to destroy our most treasured institutions and principles to do it. They have shown us that they view top-down authoritarian rule as the natural order and are oblivious to how Unconstitutional and Un-American that "natural order" is.

We should find primary candidates to run against the Dems who repeatedly fail. But when the choice is a Democratic candidate v. a Republican candidate we can support them without reservation because when we do we are fighting to keep ourselves in the game.

When a member of the Democratic Party occupies an office, our efforts to be heard are not in vain. (Of course, we have to bug the Republicans too so they can't pretend we don't exist, but being heard? Rare indeed.)

[Clarkie1]

139. Cheney as POTUS is even scarier than shrub. nt

[pat_k]

178. Congress would faili to fulfill their oath if they did not impeach Cheney

. . .too.

Cheney is as destructive a force as Bush (if not more so).

Like Bush, Cheney has usurped the powers of legislative and judicial branches by repeatedly invoking the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive to torture, to spy on Americans without warrant, to rule by signing statement. Both Bush and Cheney have publicly confessed to the criminal acts committed by the Office of the President, and both appeal to non-existent and Unconstitutional powers in defense.

[Grebrook]

143. Impeachment will lose Democrats 06', so I don't care, forget impeachment

Wrestling away Bush's unchecked power is good enough. And lots of investigations to humiliate him. We can repay the REpublicans in 08' with a Mark Warner, Al Gore or John Edwards victory over whatever head case the Reps nominate, probably Romney or Allen or Gingrich.

[mmonk]

145. If they gain the house, he needs to be impeached

or he will remain in office. Crimes against the constitution have no business being left to stand. What in the hell is impeachment for?

[pat_k]

176. Impeaching and removing is the only way to "Wrestle away Bush's unchecked

. . power."

Bush and Cheney and Co. have made it crystal clear that they have no intention of submitting to the will of Congress or the Judiciary. Nothing less than impeachment and removal will stop them from ignoring Congressional and Judicial action by continuing their Un onstitutional programs in secret.

Also, I have yet to hear a viable case made that publicly accusing them of nullifying the Constituion and calling for his impeachment and removal would cause Democratic candidates to lose elections next month.

Repeating Paul Weyrich's assertions (and now David Horowitz') is not a case. Given their dismal record on accurately describing reality, the meme parroted by DC pund-idiots is more of a case against an "attack of the mythical backlash beast" than for it.

It is as likely that standing up, telling the truth and committing to take the action that the truth demands would result in a surge of support by demonstrating the fortitude and commitment to principle that voters across the political spectrum respect.

By standing up, they would nationalize the election (the thing Republican candidates want to avoid at all costs), tap into the growing anger against Bush, and energize people who have stayed home for years because they gave up on the candidates' transparent attempts to manipulate them and have things "both ways" when the "ways" cannot be resolved.

[FredStembottom]

146. This is an election tactic only but one that leads to impeachment anyway

1) Sound uninterested NOW in impeachment (takes that Repub prediction of a witch hunt off the table until Nov. 7th).

2) After Nov. 7th, while under a new Dem majority, the act of "draining the GOP swamp" exposes the fact that it has been home to the Creature from the Black Lagoon. In other words, real evidence of crimes, malfeasance and anti-constitutional behavior so shocking that the entire nation DEMANDS impeachment - maybe more.

3) This 'snowball" of genuine, pandemic outrage from the grass roots leaves the Dems in the position of merely granting the will of the people.

Really how it should be anyway, if you ask me.

[mmonk]

147. How do we know?

Why make any statement at all?

[autorank]

150. She's not a leader, she's a bookend to the Senate leadership...

characterized by inaction and irresolute stands on key issues.

Of course, it's hard to lead int he Senate when half of the party chose to endorse the bankrupts bill,
about 1/3rd the torture-suspend habeas corpus bill, and the majority of them voted for the Iraq war authorization. Make no mistake about it, we knew, so therefore they knew, that the WMD lie was just that. We knew that the metal rods and other foundations for the Iraq nuclear threat were bogus before the Senate voted. Therefore, they voted for this knowing it was bullshit. What kid of followers and leaders do we have? People who KNEW that the Iraq war resolution's fundamental basis was a load of garbage but endorsed it anyway. I firmly believe that Kerry actually won the vote count in 2004, without much doubt. However, that vote count would have been so large as to be immune from theft had we put forth a candidate who had been courageous and moral enough to vote the truth on the Iraq war. Neither candidate had done that and that was a huge gaping hold in the campaign.

Now we have Pelosi...no impeachment. Thanks. Just four months ago, Pelosi did an interview in Raw Story and endorsed electronic voting machines, just four months ago. This is not a good sign, combined with the 'no impeachment'
.

[KoKo]

195. She will be challenged if we regain the House, hopefully.

She's been a "caretaker" Minority Leader. Have to hope that there are stronger people willing to step up.

[mmonk]

151. Purely and indefensibly nuts.

Are all dems worried about republican opinions of them to the point they can't function in their jobs and RESPONSIBILITIES? If she was so worried about republicans not saying nice things about her, she should be removed or prevented from being majority leader should it arise. The country comes first. It will not heal without crimes against it being unaddressed. The system would be BROKEN.

[pat_k]

155. Short and sweet. And says it all. Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

163. .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. Bookmark This Post....

There's no way Bush is going to be impeached...This is a purely "academic" debate...


Maybe it would better to spend the time undoing the damage he has done and making America a better place for regular folks.


History will judge his misdeeds...

[pat_k]

170. There is nothing academic about lobbying our leaders to Wake Up and Stand

Up.

[GeorgeGist]

166. Dear Nancy...

what part of A-P-P-E-A-S-E-M-E-N-T do you understand? BTW, P-E-A-S-E doesn't spell PEACE.

[pat_k]

172. . . .as more of us call or visit our own Senators or Reps and ask

. . .legislative assistants these questions, we force them to listen to their own unsupportable rationalizations as they try to justify their inaction.

It is through dialog that we "outsiders" can challenge and chip away at the "insider" rationalizations. The social forces within the beltway that maintain the bizarro-world "conventional wisdom" are strong, but not impenetrable.

They are home now. We can visit our leaders (or staffers) in person.

The cool thing about challenging the "backlash" and "strategic" rationalizations is that they invoke these same rationalizations in other instances that principle calls for action. Even if we fail to motivate them to act in the circumstances before them, we are increasing the likelihood that citizen lobbyists can get through in the future.

Sample request for a meeting (should go to the scheduler -- can get name by calling the office you are able to visit):

• http://january6th.org/files/meeting_lautenberg.pdf">To discuss Jan 6th


• http://january6th.org/mtg_request_menendez_fax_all.pdf">To discuss Alito filibuster (An earlier request would have been better. There were others walking the halls, seeking meetings that day, which was great to see, but they tended to have a more difficult time getting past reception. Even though I faxed the request last minute, being able to say "I faxed a request to so and so" got me a meeting with the Judicial LA.)

[Hugin]

171. Ah, well... It looks like a deal has been struck.

:eyes:

Oh, well... Maybe the tune will change after the elections.

Maybe.

[pat_k]

179. Even if true, it can't stop us from lobbying them to Wake Up and Stand Up

[In Truth We Trust]

175. WEAK ... How weak and unprincipled can that be? Impeach NOW!

[pat_k]

180. The reality is so self-evident. If confronted with it, their DC delusions

. . .may crumble faster than we can imagine.

[onenote]

184. here's the reality

Assuming (and I'm very hopeful about this) that the Democrats gain control the House and the Senate, they won't have the numbers to convict in an impeachment trial (and a number of Democrats from swing states may be very uncomfortable being drawn into an impeachment debate they can't win. If you spent any time on the Hill, as I have, you'd have heard Democrats complaining about repubs forcing votes on matters that they know can't be passed. Forcing a vote on impeachment is going to be a tough one for some Democrats, like it or not. Moreover,because the public isn't clamoring for impeachment, the effort will be viewed as partisan. The effort would energize the repub base and not find a huge wave of support amongst independents, who are not loyal to either party and who want to see a return to bipartisan leadership, not more partisan warfare. Here are just two quotes you'd see plastered all over the newspapers and airwaves in ads run by the repubs against any Democrat advocating impeachment:

"Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999

"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

"Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

"I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999

[pat_k]

191. Post #188 (sane reply as to your post above)

[petgoat]

203. Thanks for sticking to your guns, pat. Somebody's got to

defend the Constitution. Too bad there are so many
running interference for the Bushcists in Congress
and here at DU.

Impeachment is how we say to the world and to the
future that we are Americans, by God, and we
don't cotton to fascists here.

[IdesOfOctober]

194. Pelosi on Pensions

"Any memo like this should be marked CONFIDENTIAL so as to avoid discovery. Destroy any record of this memo." -- State Street executive Nicholas A. Lopardo, in handwritten instructions to a former compliance officer at the Corporation. Mr. Lopardo was formerly (1) a Director of State Street Corporation; (2) Vice Chairman of State Street Corporation; (3) Chairman of State Street Global Advisors ("SSgA"), the asset management division of State Street Corporation; and (4) a Director of the Boston Stock Exchange.
***************************************

Why did Elaine Chao and Eugene Scalia tap State Street to become the special fiduciary to keep Kenny Boy Lay's use of the Enron pension plans as funny money hushed up?

Because - as the "destruction of evidence memo" shows, State Street's top execs will do what it takes to cover up evidence of wrongdoing.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=elaine+chao+eugene+scalia+%22state+street%22+enron

***************************************

That, plus the fact that Andy Card and the current CEO of State Street are old high school buddies, along with Ron Kaufman - the architect of Bush 41's Willie Horton ad campaign.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=logue+card+holbrook+white+house+chief+of+staff+graduated+from+high+school&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=state+street&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=boston.com&as_rights=&safe=images

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=ron+kaufman+card+sister

***************************************

To see if your company's pension plan does business and pays fees to this Bushiest of Banks:

http://www.freeerisa.com / (Look up your plan's Form 5500, and look at the schedule of fees paid to service providers)

Will Ms. Pelosi have time to investigate the pension fraud that Bush's Bankers have helped cover up?

State Street is one of the biggest sponsors of Social Security Privatization.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=shipman+carter+%22state+street%22+promises+to+keep+saving+social+security%27s+dream

[goforit]

211. I honestly believe Ken Lay is alive

[DemInDistress]

197. if the Democrats take back Congress and reopen 911 and conduct

a legitimate investigation that uncovers any BFEE connection (MOSSAD,PAKISTAN), as 911 united the country (even me) no Dem's no GOP's no Ind. we were united as Americans. However should new evidence arise that implicates Dumsfeld,Cheney and others those same Americans will call their Congress critters and DEMAND that he not just be impeached but indicted for Treason and Murder.

The chaos in today's world was born on Sept.11 2001. The conception for that birth was Dec.07.2000... These
past 5 yrs. since, the BFEE controlled FBI, has had a tight lid on that evidence. Take Pat Roberts, how has he stalled intel reports? Delayed,denied and outright refusals to make public findings that might be detrimental to the BFEE.

My greatest wish today is finding the answers to 911. With new leadership and a hunger to learn "what really happened" I feel most Americans will benefit from finally knowing the truth.

I am not looking to hijack this thread about Pelosi but our world indeed changed on Sept.11 2001.

My apologies to those who dispute my wish..

[minnesota_liberal]

200. Considering that the neo-fascists control the media...

I think any impeachment attempt carries a high risk of blowback.

We'd better have plenty of evidence and a number of turncoat Repukes before launching any such attempt.

[mmonk]

205. Dear Nancy,

read my sig line.

[Dover]

209. Do not pass GO, but go DIRECTLY TO JAIL.

Impeachment is too good for Bush. It suggests he was actually a legitimate president.