George Bush Should be Impeached (Resource Information)

[cool user name]

George Bush Should be Impeached

Bush has committed several acts which justify impeachment. Click on the link for more details.

Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq.
Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation. <1>
Bush used government funds for domestic political propaganda. <2>
The Bush team used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes. <1> <2>
Bush was negligent in his slow response to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bush shows contempt towards our Constitution and our democratic ideals.

Links to detail at source:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/impeachbush.html

[pissedoffprogressive]

1. YES Clinton got it for a BLOW JOB. Bush has killed people

:grr:

[elocs]

22. Whether Bush deserves to be impeached (he does)

should have nothing to do with what happened to Bill Clinton. Otherwise you reduce what is an important event in American history to looking simply about a matter of payback.

[elocs]

76. As wrong as Clinton's impeachment was,

he was not impeached for a bj, but for lying under oath about it. A bj is not a high crime or misdemeanor, so Clinton handed them the ability to impeach him. It was wrong, but let's not twist reality.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. The only way we can Heal and regain trust is to Impeach! Thank You for links.

[cool user name]

6. I think it is vital to our healing and the world healing ...

If we impeach and remove.

We can maybe beg the rest of the world's forgiveness and maybe restore a fraction of our stature.

[orpupilofnature57]

17. I'LL beg for that ,the least we can do for our misplaced soldiers

[elocs]

23. Explain how you remove without getting 67 votes to convict in the Senate?

You cannot even count on getting all of the Democratic Senators to vote for conviction much less getting 15 Republican Senators to vote for conviction.

[cool user name]

26. So we don't go after criminals now because they might get off?

Hmmmm ...

That's not going to work on me.

[elocs]

36. You said, "impeach and remove".

I just asked how exactly do you intend to "remove". A DA will frequently not indict if there is no chance of conviction. That does not mean that there cannot be oversight hearings and investigations which can accomplish much. Bush is not going to be convicted---if only wishing made it so.

[BootinUp]

3. Whats funny is that everyone knows this shit.

Bush in your face politics.

So why isn't America hollerin for impeachment?

[cool user name]

4. I think TahitiNut posted that a majority favors impeachment.

As do I.

Impeach. If found guilty, remove him. If found innocent, then he can go back to being king.

Pretty simple really.

:shrug:

[BootinUp]

9. So there is a poll somewhere

that suggests we should have run our candidates on IMpeachment as an agenda? How many of our candidates ran with that as an agenda and won?

[cool user name]

11. How is that question relevant to the opening post?

[cool user name]

12. Happy Impeachment Day! 10 Reasons to Impeach

Happy Impeachment Day! 10 Reasons to Impeach

by Dave Lindorff

http://www.opednews.com



Happy Impeachment Day!
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been playing a leading role in battling the Bush administration's attacks on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and international law, has declared today to be Impeachment Day, with teach-ins scheduled around the country.

Seems like a great occasion to offer up 10 reasons for impeaching the president, as presented in Barbara Olshansky's and my new book The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.

The case for impeachment just grew much stronger, with the US Supreme Court's powerful decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In that decision, the justices didn't simply say that the President was wrong and in violation of U.S. and the international law in arbitrarily claiming that the Guantanamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The five-justice majority, which included conservative Anthony Kennedy, declared the President's bogus claim to have "special powers" as commander in chief in "time of war" to be just that--bogus.

What has been missed in almost all the mainstream media coverage of this important ruling is that this slap-down of Bush's justification for his Guantanamo decision also undermines his justification for many other of his constitutional violations.

Let's first look at the list of the president's High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They are:

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Crimes 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and possibly crimes 1, 2 and 6 have all been justified by the president using the claim of "special powers" in his role as commander in chief, the claim that was ruled invalid by the High Court, in relation to crime number 3.

It is clearly high time for all Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and for all American citizens, whatever our politics, who care about the Constitution, American democracy, and the basic freedoms that we as a nation have assumed for over two centuries to be our birthright, to demand that this criminal usurper in the White House be called to account, along with his cronies--especially Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

This is no time for Democrats to be crassly analyzing the political pros and cons of impeachment as a campaign strategy, the way Democratic Party leaders have been doing. Impeachment is the patriotic duty of anyone who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. No member of Congress should be re-elected who doesn't support putting the president in the dock.



http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

[BootinUp]

15. Its relevant to post #4 isn't it?

I have no problem with debating this topic with civility how about you?

[cool user name]

18. I have no problem either ...

But your question is a red herring.

So let's debate in a civil and constructive manner.

[BootinUp]

21. So all that matters

is yours and some others interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors. The political realities are not important, i.e. just a red herring?

[cool user name]

24. If Bush lied about going to war, and the consequences are

almost 3,000 dead US soldiers and marines, that is a high crime.

Regardless of what you or I think about it.

[BootinUp]

27. "Regardless of what you or I think about it."

Or the majority of Americans I gather.

[cool user name]

32. It's a simple observation:

That being that the majority favors impeachment.

Regardless, if a crime(s) is committed, it is the duty of the House to impeach and the Senate to convict.

Regardless of what we think about it.

[BootinUp]

34. You claim that the majority favors impeachment

I can't accept that based on the recent election, and the public debate that preceded it.

[cool user name]

39. Take that up with the poll ...

I just made the observation that TahitiNut posted a poll stating that the majority of Americans favor impeachment.

Why there's a discrepancy between your data and that of the poll, I can't begin to tell you. However, that doesn't invalidate the fact that it is the duty of the Congress to impeach and convict if the President committed a high crime or misdemeanor.

Polls, intuitions, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, majorities or lack thereof is not going to change that fundamental fact.

Edit: Spelling

[BootinUp]

41. hairs on the back of yours then?

Since you are not 2/3rds of the Senate, you need to do a lot of work on consensus there.

[cool user name]

43. Look, I'm not trying to be rude ...

I stated that for emphasis.

Do you agree with this statement?:

It is the duty of the Congress to impeach and convict if the President has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.

If not, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you do agree, then I don't know why you are trying to debate other issues and irrelevant topics with me about.

[BootinUp]

45. I'm attempting to determine

if you understand who determines when high crimes and misdeamanors have occurred. This is not a red herring, it gets right to the heart of the matter.

[cool user name]

46. You're correct ...

The House determines high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nothing about campaign promises in that equation.

[BootinUp]

48. The house plays an important role

but the Senate convicts. The Senate is the jury.

[cool user name]

50. I never said otherwise ... n/t

[elocs]

51. Frankly, I don't see how it can be proved that the majority favors

impeachment. The majority of who? Democrats? All Americans? So many here were all fired up about the poll numbers which showed the majority of Americans did not approve of Bush and did not approve of the war in Iraq, would they be just as fired up by a poll which showed that the majority of Americans did not want impeachment right not?

[BootinUp]

53. Well the way I see it

Our candidates ran away from impeachment because they read the mood of the country and the support for it wasn't there. Otherwise they all would have campaigned on it.

[noiretextatique]

28. here's a political reality

bush, inc is the most inept and corrupt administration in modern american history. if the democrats "pass" on THEIR DUTY as representatives of the people to oust this tyrant because of some perceived "political reality," then they will be as guilty as bush, inc.

[BootinUp]

31. Perceived or based on real information?

I'll redirect you to the question I asked up thread about why our candidates not only didn't run on impeachment, they ran against it.

[cool user name]

33. Political expediency?

Doesn't make it right.

Yet, your question was (and is) still a red herring.

[BootinUp]

37. Political realities as I am using it

refers to who the jury is. The jury is the Congress both houses and the people they represent, not just you and the web site authors in your OP and the DU population.

edited to clarify.

[elocs]

47. What makes you think that those of us who are not clamoring

for impeachment right now are passing on our duty? Is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi passing on her duty when she says that impeachment is off the table? Maybe after oversight hearings and investigations, impeachment would be the inevitable outcome.
Bush will still not be convicted, but that would certainly be an acceptable procedure for the majority of Americans. If impeachment is done upfront that will be all-consuming.

[elocs]

44. For the Impeachment Now crowd,

political realities are not important. Their attitude is that if you are not screaming for immediate impeachment, then you do not want it at all. I say do the oversight hearings and investigations first and then let impeachment grow out of that in the due course of time. Nancy Pelosi is not stupid and if she says impeachment is off the table, then she would not be much of a leader of her party in the House if Democrats proceeded with impeachment against her decision.

[orpupilofnature57]

64. WE are on a site ,we're not in Washington ,or politicians and don't need to be

Pragmatic,IMPEACH.

[elocs]

75. I trust Pelosi more than the political armchair quarterbacks.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I am not against impeachment. I am against immediate impeachment proceedings that will become all consuming for a year or more. Do the oversight hearing and investigations which should result in a clear cry for impeachment by a wide cross section of the American public. I want to see that clear validation of impeachment charges to set the table for impeachment hearings and most of the work will already be done. Democratic politicians need to be pragmatic because they are concerned about being reelected. Impeachment now, or impeachment later, I hope everybody here can deal with the virtual inevitability that Bush will not be convicted by the Senate.

[elocs]

30. You must be kidding? This is DU.

Frequently questions are not relevant to the original post.

[elocs]

38. Probably because Americans are not all Democrats.

Millions are also Republicans and independents who might not be hyperventilating for impeachment.

[BootinUp]

54. I agree.

Impeachment should not be a partisan agenda.

[SouthernBelle82]

72. There was a poll not long ago

where 51% of those polled said Bush should be impeached. I think now that the democrats won there should be a poll asking if they should do it. Just to see and for motivation. It should be done either way because Bush has broken the Constitution especially the fourth amendment and the rule's say to impeach.

[AlamoDemoc]

5. I would agree that we need to impeach *....but we need to consider

our priorites...that what is at present danger to us: Troops dying in Iraq and our savings being eroded by such ill-conceived mission. First thing is first; bring the troops home from Iraq and end the occupation for the Iraqis.

[cool user name]

7. They can do both ...

I mean members of Congress make a shitload of money, they better be able to multi-task.

[H2O Man]

8. Nominated.

Right on target. Thank you!

[cool user name]

10. My pleasure, believe me! n/t

[durtee librul]

13. If you want to really get a grasp

on all this....go read some of the papers from overseas on the 'net.....they are THANKING us for finally coming to our senses and are eagerly awaiting for the day when we can restore credibilty to ourselves and the rest of the world. Is Bolton still going to be around?

[cool user name]

16. Constitutional Basis for Impeachment (More resource information)

Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

The US Constitution is the foundation of our legal system. It was written and adopted by the Founding Fathers at the Federal Convention in 1787. The Constitution spells out the process by which Bush can be impeached. The full text of the Constitution is available online.

Article II, Sec. 4 states that:

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

That means that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and other cabinet members could all be impeached. Impeachable offenses include clear violations of criminal law but also misconduct that undermines the integrity of the office or violations of public trust that unjures the state.

Article 1, Section 2 states:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

That means that the House of Representatives, not the Senate, is the body that starts the process. They are the one who would formally accuse Bush of high Crimes or Misdemeanors.

Article 1, Section 3 states:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

That means that the Senate conducts the actual trial after the impeachment in the House. It takes a 2/3 majority to convict.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

That means the Senate can only remove Bush from office. Once he is out of office then he would be subject to lawsuits, war crimes tribunals, and other charges, in other courts.

Article 2, Section 2 states:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

That means that Bush cannot pardon himself or his cohorts.

Resources

Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers and related documents.

Link Source

[Laelth]

14. K&R

Nice link. More pro-impeachment arguments here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657058

:dem:

-Laelth

[cool user name]

19. Thank you, Laelth! n/t

[Laelth]

20. My pleasure.

If you find more arguments, pass 'em on. I'm collecting them for a solid letter I intend to mass mail to Democrats in Congress.

:patriot:

-Laelth

[cool user name]

25. Definitely!

:patriot:

[cool user name]

29. For Laelth: Sample Articles of Impeachment (Bush and Cheney)

(Note: this is just a proposal. The real Articles will
be written by the House Judiciary Committee.)

(LINKS IN ORIGINAL)

Articles of Impeachment for
President George W. Bush and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney
for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Last updated November 8, 2006.

Resolved, that President George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush and his team for high crimes and misdemeanors.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". George W. Bush has thus acted in violation of the supreme Law of the Land by the following acts:

Invading Iraq with United States military forces.
Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops.
Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts.
Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq.
Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment.
Article II
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has subverted the principles of democracy, by the following acts:
Providing misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.
Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.
Repeatedly claiming that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.
Stating that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.
Repeatedly ordering the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.
Retaliating against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.
Directing millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.
Article III
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has threatened the security of the American people, by the following acts:
Diverting military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.
Generating ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.
Weakening the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.
Diverting the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.
Appointing unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.
Proposing military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.
Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. Bumper Sticker

Subscribe to our Newsletter


http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html



© 2001-2006 ImpeachBush.TV - If you copy from our website, please link back to us.

[sendero]

35. If you can prove those things..

.. in such a way that the vast majority of Americans agree with you, then by all means impeach.

But understand this - many of those claims are quite subjective. If you empaneled a jury and held a regular criminal trial you would NOT GET CONVICTIONS on most of those.

When the Pugs impeached Clinton, his ratings went up and theirs went down. If we impeach Bush, the average uninformed American is going to see it as nothing but payback, and it WILL BACKFIRE POLITICALLY BIG TIME.

We just got some control and some of you are ready to fuck it up already. Get a fucking grip.

[cool user name]

40. For some of you it's all about control ...

Fuck that.

You get a fucking grip.

[sendero]

42. Without control..

.. assholes like Bush are running things. You damn right I want control.

Politics sucks but it is what it is - a reflection of the flaws of human beings and their emotions, their prejudices, their inner drives.

Impeachment cannot be good for the country or good for Dems unless the COUNTRY wants it. I don't know what is so fucking hard to get about that.

[cool user name]

49. Poll seem to indicate that Americans favor impeachment.

"I don't know what's so fucking hard to get about that."

Plus you don't let a maniac roam free for fear if people like you or not. A criminal is a criminal.

It's not about control. It's about restoring law and order and mainly about justice. If you can't see that, I can't force it upon you.

[BootinUp]

52. A Poll indicates something different...

than the just completed election then. A hell of a lot of people still voted for the Presidents party. We won, we took seats, but we don't have an impeachment mandate or the votes to carry it out and remove the President.

If you can find that poll please link to it so people can see which one you are talking about.

[sendero]

55. It's not good enough that ..

... 60% support it. It's got to be more like 75%.

It is not important enough for us to lose the razor thin margin we've managed to gather. When everyone but the 30% idiot-contingent agrees, and 20% of them also, then we should do it.

You act as though impeachment is some kind of criminal justice. Nobody goes to jail for getting impeached. I'd much prefer a criminal trial down the road with some real consequences.

[elocs]

56. How many Americans who favor impeachment

think that it means that Bush will be removed from office? Many here at DU have trouble with that concept.

[magellan]

57. What impeachment is

Cool User Name, this isn't directed at you but at some of the responses. Damn, people need educating. Stop the kneejerk reaction to the word "impeach" and understand the FULL PROCESS. Also understand it's not an option but a DUTY of Congress, intended to protect us and our government, precisely the same way it's the duty of our justice system to try any one of us if we're charged with a crime.

John Conyers has already tabled an impeachment inquiry. It's up to the House to decide whether he has provided enough evidence to justify further investigation. If they continue to ignore that duty, they do this country NO FAVORS.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

What is Impeachment?

Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here.

By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, "all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

[BootinUp]

58. which response was knee jerk in your opinion?

Cool user name posted a list of possible "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be included in articles of impeachment.

Then, I said everyone already knows this shit.

Then I talked about how it appears there is not enough support shown in the recent election for delivering articles to the Senate. The basis for that statement is that the candidates did not say "elect me and I will vote for impeachment".

So to recap

By my analysis, the reasons in the OP have been judged to not be impeachable by the voting public at large and the newl elected House of Representatives and the newly elected Senate.

[magellan]

59. It's not up to the public

Several of the OP's reasons have been included in Rep Conyers' impeachment inquiry to the House. It's the duty of the House to review that inquiry and determine if an investigation is warranted.

[BootinUp]

60. The house will not move on it if

there is zero chance for conviction. An investigation would have to turn up something more damning than what is listed in the OP, something that has not already been debated by the country.

[orpupilofnature57]

65. An investigation would show us ,but most of all SLOW him in his last days

[BootinUp]

67. I am not against "investigations" I am against

"impeachment investigations"

I strongly advocate investigations into Iraq policy that has failed/is failing.

[orpupilofnature57]

69. Impeaching Shrub will speed withdrawl and a return to Democracy for

the only country that Always preaching it ,This man has assaulted it , IMPEACHMENT.

[OneBlueSky]

63. what impeachment is is a POLITICAL action . . .

that results in NO punishment whatsoever other than removal from office . . . the intent of impeachment is to protect the nation from irresponsible and/or criminal officials -- something that can also be accomplished through Constitutional checks and balances now that we control the Congress . . .

if we want justice, we have to bring the perpetrators before a court (or courts) of law . . . impeachment doesn't do that . . .

what we need to do, imo, is accumulate evidence and build a case while we address the crucial issues that the nation elected us to tackle . . . the war, healthcare, minimum wage, the environment, New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, etc. . . we can pursue justice AFTER these cretins leave office by hauling their asses before U.S. and international courts . . .

if we pursue impeachment now, it will literally consume the government and the country for the next two years, and nothing much else will get done . . . this is NOT why Democrats were elected . . . if we want to continue as the majority two years hence, we best start establishing a record that demonstrates to Americans that we can govern, and solve some of the myriad of problems created by BushCo over the past six years . . .

[Jcrowley]

61. K & R n/t

[longship]

62. I only wish there was enough time to get the job done.

In practice, we don't have much time for this.

The Nixon deal took 20 months from the beginning of debate to begin the investigation until Nixon resigned. And Nixon was never impeached, let alone tried in the Senate, which would have easily taken another six months. In the interim, Nixon caused much trouble for our country, including initiating a full-blown Constitutional crisis, the Saturday Night Massacre.

It was a full 12 months before the country got behind a Nixon impeachment enough to begin the official inquiry in the House. We should already know from the Clinton debacle that one needs the public behind you before you begin such a thing. I fear that this won't happen right away and we're going to have to be very careful that we don't piss off the people who will be voting for our party for Congress and for President in November, 2008.

Do we want impeachment hearings to extend into the Presidential campaign in 2008? I just don't know the answer to that question.

I think that the best course of action may be to initiate hearings at the soonest opportunity and let the people decide on the proper course of action on forming an official inquiry.

We might want to *not* impeach, but rather keep Chimp tied up with hearings and investigations, call in a special prosecutor (or two, or three) and a grand jury. Let things fall as they will.

Then, five minutes after Al Gore is sworn in as President on January 21, 2009, frog march those ChimpCo assholes out of the White House. Let the courts, who the assholes have demonized for eight years, deal with them. And my God have mercy on their souls.

What does anybody else think about this?

[H2O Man]

73. You raise valid points.

I think the idea of how much longer Bush-Cheney are in office puts the limp reasoning of a few anti-impeachment folks into the proper context. One person, who I generally respect as a clear-thinker, keeps saying, "Not now, but maybe later." When, then?

[tommcintyre]

66. National Groups Announce Movement for Impeachment

This group has additional resources; and will help to mobilize the masses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2671967

[cool user name]

68. Thanks for the information, tommcintyre ...

:hi:

[orpupilofnature57]

71. Good One!

[SouthernBelle82]

70. Yes!

If we don't do impeachment we as a country and as a party are sending a message to anyone in the future that you can get away with this. That you can torture, break the Constitution, and invade another country with lying and get away with it. Nuremberg happened with the Nazi's so that would never happen again (them invading a country). Now it's our turn to step up and to try these war criminals. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz think they're going to go and hide out somewhere and never get any type of justice. I hope we prove them wrong.

[orpupilofnature57]

74. Your right ,Impeaching Shrub will set 'Our' record as citizens straight.