House Democrats: No impeachment (yesterday's NPR)

[kay1864]

How Would a Democrat-Led House Differ?
No more deficit spending
Raising the minimum wage
Making college tuition deductible
Halving the interest rate on student loans

Henry Waxman would focus on taxpayer dollars being squandered through waste, fraud, and abuse

Biggest change would be in investigations and oversight. However:

“One issue that House Democrats insist they’re not going to touch is impeachment”

"John Conyers has said he would not initiate impeachment proceedings for misuse of intelligence in the runup to the war on Iraq, but has left the door open for future investigations."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6284893

[ck4829]

1. I don't mind

Roberts would preside over the impeachment hearings, he'd probably slow us down with everything he has.

[bryant69]

9. I agree - it would be nice but impractical

Of course if the investigations pull up more clearly impeachable offenses that would change the story.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bullimiami]

16. part of the reason we are in this mess now is that

they keep letting these powerful criminals get away without punishment and they come back to do it again.

[ck4829]

18. Investigations and Oversight

Will do much more than an attempt at Impeachment could do.

[never_get_over_it]

39. Roberts WOULD NOT preside over the impeachment hearings

if the devil in chief was impeached it would start in the HOUSE judiciary committee and John Conyers would preside over that - if the committee voted out articles of impeachment they would then be voted on by the entire House - IMPEACHMENT is an indictment - this indictment would then be tried in the Senate where Roberts would preside.

I wish people would stop equating impeachment with removal from office. Bill Clinton WAS IMPEACHED he was not removed.....and for the record if the devil in chief had articles of impeachment voted against him he would never be removed because it takes 67 guilty votes in the Senate and that is never going to happen....

that being said John Conyers SO NEEDS to investigate these freaks.....

[kay1864]

43. 67 guilty votes = 51 Dem votes + 16 GOP votes

As for those 16 GOP Senate votes:

- Chimpy is an albatross around their necks
- ~16 21 of them are up for re-election in 2008. They certainly don't want to lose *more* seats.
- Some of them actually listen to their constituents
- Some might actually do their job (Senators are better at this than House members) and in the face of a clear felony like warrantless wire tapping, might vote for conviction
- Some have already voted against Chimpy in passing legislation

You're right about Roberts presiding over the Senate trial, not the impeachment hearings in the House. But would he even have that much effect? Rehnquist presiding over Clinton's trial, with a Republican majority, yet the Senators decided against conviction. I don't think Roberts can (for example) halt the Senate proceedings, any more than a judge can halt a trial he doesn't agree with.

Agreed, Conyers needs to investigate. Thoroughly.

[never_get_over_it]

45. I just don't think we could get 67 votes to remove this freak

first of all you are assuming we have 51 Dems which isn't a given and that they all vote to remove the freak - and one of those so called Dems might be LIEberman and he would NEVER vote to remove this criminal and there are four or five LIEberman DINOs who are actually still supporting him after he lost the primary - and then I have a DINO Senator Bill Nelson and I'm not sure we could count on him - and with this group of repunks who care more about their party than this country I just don't see it happening....but we can dream.

And as for Roberts having any effect don't think so - don't remember Reinquist being too relevant in the Clinton trial - only thing I remember was that snappy outfit he wore...LOL.

[kay1864]

46. Agreed, it's not a given

It's a fervent hope. :) To be honest I think we'll end up with 49 or 50, rather than the 51 needed to control the Senate. At this point it all depends on Missouri and Tennessee. New Jersey's still a little dicey too.

I hear you about Nelson...but way better than Satanspawn Harris eh?

"Snappy outfit" huh? I missed that. Does the Chief have special impeachment robes with epaulets or something? LOL

[never_get_over_it]

50. For your enjoyment

and you don't even want to get me started on Bill Nelson - as far as voting record truly think there would be very little difference between him and Satanspawn - as far as sanity I will give that one to Bill

[kay1864]

52. Woo, snazzy!

Still, he doesn't hold a candle to these guys:






(Oh wait, this is GD, isn't it? And here I've turned this into a Lounge post...)

[Temporary1]

We'll see how true that holds after they win

They might not want to say it just yet; Conyers is very progressive and does want to pick a fight with Bush no doubt; he might do it anyway.

[gatorboy]

4. Only if we're lucky.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. Well, they can't impeach without investigation...a very THOROUGH

investigation. I say bring it on!

Welcome to DU!

[Temporary1]

2. We'll see how true that holds after they win

They might not want to say it just yet; Conyers is very progressive and does want to pick a fight with Bush no doubt; he might do it anyway.

[elehhhhna]

38. Sotra like Poopy's "No new taxes" line.

[MallRat]

3. Smart strategy. We all know that it's always an option later.

No need to distract voters from the current narrative, which is "GOP corrupt, GOP bad, GOP power-hungry."

[HereSince1628]

12. Yep, and no reason to disaffect fence-sitters with threats

The GOP is doing plenty of that, not reason to validate the anxiety they are trying to raise. We need to remember the VolkenGOP feeds on fear.

[acmavm]

5. Impeachment, not a big deal. A war crimes trial is my dream.

[Richardo]

6. Their priorities are in the right order.

:thumbsup:

[tularetom]

7. Why do they do this?

They don't have to impeach the boy king but why the fuck do they tell everybody beforehand? Let * think he has two years of sworn testimony in front of various house committees ahead of him. It might actually bring on the final meltdown we've all been so eagerly awaiting. The house Dems ought to know better than this how to play the game by now.

[demwing]

14. Because there's a sense that Americans want some civility

and cooperation. The Clinton impeachment hearings, followed by the Republicans locking the Dems out of the process, has given the country a desire for a real congress, as the term should be defined.

Besides, Conyers' words seem very specific. No impeachment hearing "on the misuse of intelligence" leading up to Iraq.

That doesn't cover the wholesale fabrication of evidence, or the outright lies that were brought to the table. Nor, as was stated, does it preclude future investigations.

[tularetom]

20. I hope you're right

Perhaps after the election, as the parade of indicted, convicted and imprisoned repubs continues, and as the WH gets drug deeper and deeper into the swamp, the public will clamor for impeachment. I still think it would benefit the house Dems now to play a little coy about their intentions, if only to keep * in a snit.

[demwing]

42. I trust Conyers

And I don't trust many politicians, even some of the ones for which I've voted. I think he's one of the good guys, and isn't afraid to mix it up.

[Auntie Bush]

21. Because a lot of fence sitters and Conservatives still like

Bush personally and think he had good intention and wouldn't want him impeached...however they don't like the direction we're heading and our huge debt...so they might vote Democrat. Let's not scare off any Fundies. They love Bush! We need every vote and that can only reduce possible votes. It would also let the Thugs campaign on that issue and distract from the important issues. I think it was a well thought out decision. As some one said we could always find some new charge during the investigations and find a new reason to impeach him...without going against our promise not to.

[Lex]

8. House Investigations with sworn testimony in front of TV cameras

to expose the Repukes as the crooks they are for all America to see.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Good

Talk of impeachment would fire up the GOP base, and right now, we have the intensity advantage. Midterm turnout is always low, and this intensity advantage - a 22-point difference, according to the WaPo Fix - will make the difference. They start talking impeachment, and this advantage dries up and blows away.

You want an agenda? Try this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701094.html

In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

All these measures command massive popular support. The reason they've not been enacted is that House Republicans have passed rules making it impossible for the Democrats to offer amendments to any significant legislation, thereby sparing themselves the indignity of having to choose, say, between the interests of their financial backers in the drug industry and their constituents.

Cognizant that they will owe their victory in part to the public's revulsion at the way Congress does (or avoids) business, the Democrats also plan to revise House rules to enable the opposition party to introduce amendments and to sit on conference committees, from which Republicans have routinely excluded them since Tom DeLay became majority leader. They also will ban members from accepting gifts and paid trips from lobbyists.

By bringing such measures to a vote in the House, and conceivably in the Senate as well, the Democrats will be in the enviable position of doing both good and well: promoting long-overdue policy shifts that the public supports and putting their Republican colleagues in a pickle. Confronted with an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage or making medication for seniors more affordable, many Republicans will side with the Democrats. Should the Democrats win the Senate, Republicans will have to calculate the risks of filibustering such mom-and-apple-pie measures. These bills will also pose a conundrum for conservatives such as John McCain, whose presidential aspirations have not been clouded by having to vote on these issues.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Thanks, Will, for pointing me to this article. I'd missed it.

[davekriss]

22. I would hope...

...that a high priority includes repeal and rewrite of the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act, movement towards universal healthcare (via single-payer or some other effective solution), and more. I think there is a ton of stuff that should preceed concern about stem cell research and languishing 9-11 recommendations (I'm still far more likely to die via a piano falling out of a second story window than by terrorist incident). And last, I think impeachment should be left an open question, open to the findings of various intense investigations.

I think if ever there was a case for impeachment, it's staring us in the face. An example should be set for future Presidents that high crimes and misdemeanors of the sort exampled by the Bush administration will not be tolerated, otherwise we leave substantial risk on the table for the emergence of future tyrants. Having said that, I could live with an activist Democratic congress and a Bush rendered tame, an ineffective lame duck! That would be delightful!!

[A wise Man]

11. I hope i'm right

the democrats should'nt let the rethugs know that they are going to impeach and try Bush and his cabal for treason and war crimes. Why give them a chance to weasel out if they knew it was going to happen. And I think they know. Because why else would they try to rid Habeus Corpus to protect themselves from war crimes.

[WI_DEM]

13. That is the best thing to say at this point becuz we don't want to

turn off the Independent voters. Most people opposed the effort to impeach Clinton in '98 and that led to Dems gaining ten seats in the House that November. Now that doesn't mean we won't have investigations of what happened in the wake of the war, and if evidence which warrants impeachment arises it doesn't mean that it would proceed, but in all likelihood with only two years left in office its doubtful that there is even enough time to impeach Bush.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. There is no way they could declare they would seek impeachment today.

They have to already have control of the House before investigating for causes to impeach.

[pat_k]

41. When our commitment to principle demands that we fight to defend it,. . .

. . .failure to take up the fight (even if you think it will be a charge of the light brigade) is a betrayal of that principle.

The antidote to so-called "poisonous partisanship" is confronting truth and reality head on and taking the actions demanded by the facts.

The only way any elected official or candidate can prove commitment to our founding principles over party is to fight for those principles regardless of partisan concerns.

Instead of recognizing this and actually rising above partisanship by fighting for core principles, the so-called Democratic strategists think the antidote can be found in cynically "going along to get along" and saying they seek bipartisanship, which people across the spectrum assume is insincere (as demonstrated the assertion that Pelosi is just mouthing what the right wants to hear to molify them -- something I have heard repeatedly from folks on our side.)

Nothing could be more wrong-headed than attempting to "rise above" poisonous partisanship by playing more partisan games.

By failing to run on impeachment, Democratic candidates have condemned themselves to looking like partisan hypocrites who are only willing to fight for their principles when it is "safe" -- which is a form of cowardice and faithlessness that Americans take a very dim view of.

Each and every member of Congress is sworn to defend the Constitution. Democratic candidates and office holders are missing the boat and they will pay a high price. They would have proven to the nation that for them defending the Constitution trumps party if they had they offered the Republicans the choice: impeach and remove Bush and Cheney to rescue the Constitution now and swear in Hastert, or swear in the Democratic Speaker in 2007.

Perhaps the most tragic part of this missed opportunity is that running on impeachment was not just the RIGHT thing to do, it was the WINNING thing to do.

Charges have been leveled against Bush and Cheney by countless citizens and public figures. Failure to formally accuse in articles of impeachment is tantamount to exoneration. By essentially exonerating them the members of Congress are feeding the Bush as "strong leader" propaganda when they could be exposing Bush and Cheney as Un-American authoritarians who are destroying fabric of our nation to amass and wield Unconstitutional power to serve themselves and their cronies.

The magnitude of the error is painful to behold.

We can only hope that in the coming months we find a big enough cluestick to wake them up to their duty. They missed the boat on proving their commitment to principle.

Fortunately, Americans have a soft spot for confession and redemption. If they confess their error and seek to make it right by taking up the fight they can redeem themselves.

If they try to "finesse" and escape admission of error, they will have to contend with the negative consequences.

[sinkingfeeling]

49. You make excellent points and I concur that Democrats need to pursue

avenues for impeachment. However, I think that if they 'played their hand' today, we would find a surge in GOP base voters on Nov. 7. I don't want anything to fire up the idiots in this country who already call Democrats 'traitors'.

[dubyaD40web]

23. I'm fine with that.

Actually, if you think about it, Bush will be a lame duck after the elections anyway. Even if the repukes retain control.

[Dob Bole]

24. I want Bush to be the face of the Republican Party in '08

Providing that Democrats can win both houses of Congress, Republicans' face in the media will be Bush. This will do nothing but benefit us in the 2008 congressional elections (in which we already have an advantage) and maybe the Presidential election as well.

[moc]

25. I heard an interesting perspective from the congresswoman

who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings. (Sorry that I don't recall her name.)

She said that the reason impeachment "worked" in the case of Nixon (and have no doubt, he would have been convicted by the Senate if not for his preemptive resignation), there was massive public support for it. And she said the reason impeachment "failed" in the case of Clinton is that the public support was not there. Even at the height of the Clinton mess, Clinton enjoyed very high public support and most of the public did not support the Clinton impeachment.

So, the way I interpret this current position by the Dems is that the move to impeachment would not come from them, it would come from the people. They are NOT saying they won't have hearings, conduct oversight, etc. If what is finally revealed by those investigations warrants impeachment, that move will come from the people.

[pat_k]

47. There is enormous public support for impeachment

. . .We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls (even with no leader out there making the case; even before Katrina, a majority of Americans said "If he lied, he should be impeached." Well, now a majority think he lied to coerce the nation into war.)

Just because the major pollsters refuse to ask the question doesn't mean the energy and support isn't out there.

When no one gives voice to the things people are angry and passionate about, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!

I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus our efforts on. There was little energy.

As the moderator neared the end of the agenda, someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line.

If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. Because they were hell-bent on "moving on" they would have walked away from the call, believing everyone else was on board with the "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.

We see this over and over again in ways large and small.

Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they even tip toe near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.

Not to mention the fact that they are sworn to defend the Constitution and when they fail to take up the fight -- whatever the rationalizations -- they become faithless oath breakers.

The magnitude of their error is painful to watch.

Charges have been leveled against Bush and Cheney by countless citizens and public figures. Failure to formally accuse in articles of impeachment is tantamount to exoneration. By essentially exonerating them the members of Congress are feeding the Bush as "strong leader" propaganda when they could be exposing Bush and Cheney as Un-American authoritarians who are destroying fabric of our nation to amass and wield Unconstitutional power to serve themselves and their cronies.

[oc2002]

26. Impeachment is too partisian, although it worked for the Repugs.

They have the muscle to do it, the dems do not. By that I mean the mainstream media was all over the case against Bill.

That is not to say the Dems should not have investigations on the many lies and corruption of the President and the GOP, but should focus on the over all picture of the GOP's failures of the past 6 years.

[WI_DEM]

27. but it didn't work for them as they wound up losing popularity

over it as well as ten house seats in the '98 election.

[Aviation Pro]

28. Here's the way I see it going down....

...Dems, fingers crossed here, take the House and Senate. On day one after the change over in January, a contingent marches up from Capitol Hill to the White House and gives Little Monkey an ultimatum, do the following (name your big ticket items) or you will end up in prison. Little Monkey, coward that he is, will do exactly what he is told to do and will serve his remaining two years as a figurehead. Meanwhile, his filthy krew will be sent to prison until they rot.

[elehhhhna]

40. ...and THEN we extraordinary-rendition his ass to the Hague.

[hedgehog]

29. IS there any way to bring Bush up on criminal charges after he leaves the

White House? That would be more effective IMO because it would have less of a partican taint. Assuming a Democrat is in charge, it also precludes a round of pardons.

[kay1864]

31. Absolutely. He's just a private citizen at that point.

It would just take a very brave Federal prosecutor. Or maybe the World Court.

[Johonny]

30. I think

impeachment is on the natural order of events if they really start oversight. If they really look into any of a dozen different shady events such as torture, prewar intelligence, Plame, spying, Katrina, post invasion spending, the energy plan... I think the Dems can keep flinging dirt on top of dirt until basically no one is interested in supporting these people. Nixon went from winning in a landslide to out of office due simply to actual oversight. So to me I think Dems are taking the right approach first get the real oversight and then let the facts demand impeachment.

[LSK]

32. there is no doubt he will have hearings on things

And who knows where that would lead.

To say he will have impeachment hearings or not is WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY too early to say right now.

[Crabby Appleton]

33. It takes a 2/3 vote in the senate for conviction

don't think 67 votes are going to be there.

[kay1864]

34. Actually it would be 16

Assuming Dem control of the Senate. So 16 of the 49 GOP Senators would be needed. It could happen. Especially with Senate elections only a year and a half after said hearings.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. If we take back congress...

Republicans are going to drop Bush like a ton of bricks.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. If they start investigations,

they will have NO CHOICE but to IMPEACH that bastard. He's a WAR CRIMINAL. Cheney's a WAR CRIMINAL. Rumsfeld is a WAR CRIMINAL. Gonzales is a WAR CRIMINAL. Paul Wolfowitz is a WAR CRIMINAL. Scooter Libby is a WAR CRIMINL. KKKRove is a WAR CRIMINAL. Anyone who aided and abetted that bastard, is a WAR CRIMINAL. Just as the Nazi guards were WAR CRIMINALS, so are the Bush cronies. Send them ALL to the Hague!

They are just saying this to quiet the repuke talking point. They WILL Impeach. They have to. It's their job. It's their DUTY.

[elehhhhna]

37. Who needs impeachment? We have the World Court at the Hague.

Good enough for me.

[Rosco T.]

44. of course they won't start it... WE WILL...

.. that's the 'out' on their statement and keeps the 'thugs from using it to energize their voters. Dem's won't start impeachment.. but IF THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT.. and after a few months of subpoenas, hearings and dirty laundry being held up to the cameras...

[catmandu57]

48. We don't need to talk impeachment

When we resume control, investigate, investigate, investigate. This is a rich ripe tree laddies, all we need to do is shake it a little then watch as the ripe fruit falls. If we make it to january we're going to laughing for years.

edit: fat fingers

[drbtg1]

51. "We will not start an impeachment because of a blue dress. We have...

...more important things to fix."

THAT should be the Dem's talking point!!!

It won't be though. They won't listen to us.