The real problem with impeachment: do we have enough time?

[jgraz]

A few facts from one of the many Watergate Timelines available online:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/chronology.htm

The Watergate Hearings started on May 18th, 1973, after the convictions of Liddy and McCord and after the resignations of Haldeman, Erlichman and A.G. Kleindienst. Even though the scandal was pretty much in full-swing when the hearings started, it still took 448 days for Nixon to resign (Aug, 8th 1974).

Assuming that the Dems start hearings directly on Jan 3rd, 448 days later leaves us at March 26th, 2008 -- right in the middle of presidential (and Congressional) primary season. How many members of Congress are going to want to take time away from the election in order to debate impeachment?

Now, of course, this line of reasoning makes some HUGE assumptions by trying to project past timelines onto present events. But I'm at a loss to find reasons why the current investigation and debate should take significantly less time than it did during Watergate -- especially since Nixon himself shortened the process considerably by resigning rather than forcing a vote on impeachment in the House and a subsequent trial in the Senate.

I'd be curious why people think impeachment is even a possibility given our current timeframe. Personally, I'm much more hopeful about Bush, et al. facing criminal proceedings after they leave office.

[bullimiami]

1. if the investigations lead to charges after they are gone, just as well,

let them answer for their crimes to a jury of their peers. or in the hague.

[madrchsod]

2. no

we have one year and that is not enough time.

[Rageneau]

3. How can we ignore our REQUIREMENT to impeach scoundrels like Smirk?

Like the GOP told us again and again, it is not our CHOICE whether to impeach the president, it is our DUTY. to We owe it to the Constitution. So it doesn't matter how long Bush and Cheney have left to serve -- the law is the law. Besides, how long did it take the Repukes to bring impeachment charges against Clinton -- two months? In that sense, there's plenty of time left.

Another reason we MUST impeach Bush is to take away the repukes' future ability to unfairly criticize Clinton and the Democrats by tying the impeachment albatross around their necks. We owe it to history to show that, at this period of time, impeach the president was a political, not a moral, decision (even though ours would be a heck of a lot more 'morally based' than theirs.)

Therefore, if we don't impeachent Bush for the RIGHT reasons (because he deserves it) we should at least be savvy enough to impeach him for the same reason the repukes tried to impeach OUR president -- pure political manuvering. That way, when future Americans look back upon this time, Clinton's impeachment will be shown to have as much legitimacy as one of Bush's Medal of Freedom awards.

[CarbonDate]

13. The Repukes were full of it.

There is no "requirement" to impeach. It's the option and totally at the discretion of Congress.

Investigations should be broad enough to cover the entire scope of the BFEE, not just the figure-heads currently in office. If that takes so long that they're out of office by the time we have a solid case, then so be it. Better to do it right than rashly.

[smalll]

4. The Clinton impeachment process only took 5 months!

I'm on the don't-impeach side, but the Republicans took only five months (and three days to be exact) to run the whole process through -

September 9, 1998: Independent Counsel Ken Starr submits his report to the House of Representatives.

September 11, 1998: The House of Representative votes to receive the Starr report. The House Judiciary Committee takes possession of the 18 boxes of materials and promptly releases the first 445 pages to the public.

October 5, 1998: On a 21-16 vote, the House Judiciary Committee recommends a full impeachment inquiry

October 8, 1998: The House of Representatives authorizes a wide-ranging impeachment inquiry of President Clinton on a 258-176 vote. Thirty-one Democrats join Republicans in supporting the investigation.

November 3, 1998: Democrats pick up five seats in the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, and held off a Republican super-majority in the Senate.

December 8, 1998: In a daylong session, President Clinton's lawyers and three panels of witnesses testify on the president's behalf, saying Clinton's behavior does not warrant impeachment.

December 11-12, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee approves four articles of impeachment, alleging that President Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice as well as accusing him of making false statements in his answers to written questions from Congress. A Democratic proposal to censure Clinton instead goes down to defeat.

December 19, 1998: After 13 1/2 hours of debate over two days, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment.

January 7, 1999: The perjury and obstruction of justice trial of President Bill Clinton begins in the Senate.

February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment.

(Timeline abridged, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm)

[ThomWV]

5. Conyers Has Done The Groundwork, Just Hold Hearings, Make it Official

And then impeach the bastard.

Who cares if the result is tossing him out of office between now and 2008 or having the Senate sentence him to jail time if its after 2008. There is no limit to the punishment that the Senate might impose - its not limited on the top by removal from office.

[longship]

6. Sorry, you cannot have impeachment inquiry w/o investigations.

That's just the way it works. No Congress critter will support an inquiry until there's been investigations. Live with it, folks.

You have to push for both investigations and impeachment, otherwise, it cannot get done.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. No Investigation Needed

Unlike in Nixon's case, Bush's actions that are most impeachable - attacking our constitution via signing statements and anticonstitutional executive orders - are out in the open for the world to see. The only question to consider is whether these were aggresive interpretations of the Constitution, or an attempt to destroy it. This can be pondered during the trial, after impeachment is started.

[longship]

12. Rubbish.

You cannot impeach without public support--and I do not mean the soft, squishy kind of "impeach Bush if he's done something impeachable" or "impeach Bush if he lied us into war" support. That's what you have now. Sure, 50-some percent support impeachment, but the majority of those are the squishy kind.

This is decidedly *not* unlike the Nixon case. There were millions begging for impeachment throughout 1973, but it didn't make any difference. The House didn't begin talking about an impeachment inquiry until January, 1974 and did not decide for it until Feb 6, 1974. That was a whole 19 months after the Watergate breakin and a year behind the similar Senate proceedings which were voted on Feb 7, 1974. We had a whole year of Senate hearings and a Saturday Night Massacre before the public support for impeachment enabled the House to move.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about impeachment. The only thing that matters is whether there's enough public support. Right now, there isn't.

Impeachment isn't supposed to be easy. It isn't nor should it be.

[longship]

15. Typo--sorry

Watergate Senate hearings were approved on Feb 7, 1973. I mistyped the date.
House impeachment hearings were approved on Feb 6, 1974.

[magellan]

7. Impeachment can happen after an official leaves office

At that point impeachment could bar them from holding public office ever again and deprive them of their pension.

I don't know about anyone else but the idea of ensuring Bush** doesn't get to live off any of my tax dollars for the rest of his life makes me happy.

[stillcool]

8. My mind is moving on this one..

for some reason I bought into a lot of 'spin' on this issue. The Constitution provides us (a) remedy for this administration. It's no Chinese menu, where we can pick and choose. To not use the only tool we have is absolutely fucking ludicrous. I had been taken in by the argument that impeachment would take up too much time, and would impede the Congress's ability to correct the course we are on. I now think...that reasoning...comes straight from the 'cover-up wing', who want to take us for the same ride we had on the "Warren Commission", and the "9/11 Commission"...and until further enlightened I call BULLSHIT!

[boolean]

10. Can't it be sped up?

I have trouble believing that they can't expediate the process if they had to.

[longship]

14. I think yes.

But we have to get our ducks in line. Congress won't impeach without a public mandate. I don't mean a Bush mandate of 50.00001%. We'll need a *real* mandate. Otherwise, the House will not move. Nor should they.

The fast track to achieving that lies solely on having investigations which will reveal information which will produce the largest public outrage, We already know that lying us into war will do it. Probably the signing statements will do it, too. However, the ignorant public might have to be first taught exactly what a signing statement is, etc.--that's not a fast path. What did it for Watergate was an actual action by Nixon, the Saturday Night Massacre. But it took the stunning smoking gun tape released in early August, 1974--where Nixon clearly conspires to obstruct justice--before all support for Nixon evaporated over night and resulted in his resignation.

Beat the drum for investigations. It doesn't matter if you beat the impeachment drum now or not. Congress will not act without the mandate, anyway. Investigations are the key. Without them, there will not be a mandate for impeachment.

[Raine]

11. No we don't the time left needs to be used

for getting this country in shape so that the Democratic party is able to take complete control of all three branches of government in 2008.

[FreemanJ]

16. Congress needs to get to work- no more 3 day work weeks

Have you seen how many vacations these people have been taking the last 6 years?

I think we need to force them to get to work defending our constitution- it is their job afterall!

Send 500,000 impeachment letters to Pelosi by her first day as speaker Jan. 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2697215

check out this youtube video- Get out of Iraq- Impeach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxMWrl4zn1A

[TahitiNut]

17. Be sure to tell the families of 700,000 dead Iraqis we just don't have time.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Nevermind telling the familes of about 3,000 dead service men and women.

Nevermind telling all the people in "detention" without trial and their families.

Nevermind telling all the people who've been wiretapped without warrant.

After all, "we don't have time" ... while we wait in line for a Playstation-3.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[pat_k]

18. Bush and Cheney could be out by President's Day

We know http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2759379">all we need to know to make the case the Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution and future of this nation. (Even if there weren't so many other crimes to choose from, the world-wide hatred of Bush's USA alone endangers us; removing them to redeem ourselves is a defensive act.)

Members of Congress could introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney when they convene on January 4, 2007. Committee hearings to review and make the case could be underway in days. Since there is no need for investigation, the hearings could move very quickly. (Note: Calling for an investigation is a declaration that we don't have a case -- a lie that undercuts the powerful case we have.)

Once they get serious and declare their intent to impeach and remove, there is no set sequence of events. Between the threat of impeachment and removal from office (via resignation or impeachment) the possibilities are infinite. It could take weeks. It could take months. They could be out by President's Day (Feb 19, 2007).

Simply getting serious about impeachment could be enough for Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy" in order to keep the WH in Republican hands -- that is, Cheney resigns, Bush nominates a replacement that both the Senate and the House are willing to confirm; Bush resigns, VP becomes P and nominates their own VP. (The Bush WH is an albatross that Republicans may be more than happy to be rid of, particularly when the risk of involuntary removal is President Pelosi.)

Despite the certitude with which so many prognosticators tell us that there's "no chance" of conviction in the Senate, we have as much, if not more reason to be optimistic than pessimistic.

Public reaction is a powerful driving force. Even with the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda coming from the establishment -- both Dems and Repubs -- Newsweek found that 51% want impeachment to be a priority, and only 44% believe "it should not be done." If they get serious about impeachment, the accusations will be the number 1 topic of public debate. The 51% is almost guaranteed to shoot up to more than 60% overnight. (For more on this, see the discussion in http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Results on Impeachment.

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements to nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar) who may find they simply can't stomach exonerating.

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

[Disturbed]

19. "having the Senate sentence him to jail time "

The Senate cannot do that.

Impeachment could be done in 5 months. The evidence is at hand.

[pat_k]

20. I think you meant to reply to this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2760627&mesg_id=2760807

My post asserts that there are scenarios that could have them outta there in weeks, not months (that is, weeks from the day they get serious about it).

And of course, the goal of impeachment is defense of the Constitution by removing the threat (Whether remval is via conviction in the Senate or resignation in response to the threat of impeachment/conviction doesn't much matter.)

Prosecution, conviction, and punishment is for the courts (both here and at the Hague), not Congress.