Please answer this question:

[cali]

What would happen if the democrats in the House introduced articles of impeachment tomorrow?

I'd spell it out, but I think the answer is obvious.

[Reterr]

1. I have no idea really

But it would interesting to watch what would go down :shrug:

[maddezmom]

2. nada

Unless they can introduce when not in session. :shrug: I'll wait and see what they have up their sleeves when they get back after break before I jump off the bandwagon. :hi:

[dorkulon]

3. My faith in government might be restored.

And power-mad Republican presidents in the future might think twice about subverting the constitution? What else?

[cali]

4. Wrong.

Here's what would happen:


The articles would be voted down. We don't have a strong enough majority to muscle them through. It wouldn't even reach the Senate for a vote. And then what? That action would throw a huge monkey wrench into further action.

Investigations first.

[dorkulon]

12. Wrong.

Making the effort rallies our base and makes us look more committed and less calculating. And I think it would reach the senate, where it would die, just like the Clinton impeachment--which hardly hurt the GOP.

[cali]

14. The votes aren't there right now.

There's no chance whatsofuckingever that articles of impeachment would pass the House at this time.

Investigations first.

[maxrandb]

5. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh's

heads would explode.

All the more reason to "bring it on".

If there were ever a pretzledent that needed impeaching, it's this one.

[cali]

8. So you don't give a shit

that articles of Impeachment would be voted down in the House, never even reaching the Senate, and any chance of actually impeaching bushco would be blown? You just want the short lived satisfaction of seeing right wingers heads exploding. Sad.

[maxrandb]

17. WOAH There Partner

Who says that the articles would be voted down?

Did you read my post? I said if any president deserved to be impeached it's this one.

The right-wingers heads exploding would just be a bit of icing on the cake.

[cali]

30. I say it, and so does anyone

familiar with the makeup of the House. Blue Dogs will not vote for it. Republicans won't vote for it. Introduced too soon, the articles are DOA.

[cassiepriam]

6. Too early. Public has to be a bit more angry.

But they are getting there.

[napi21]

7. It would be a mistake to do so before the hearings!

We all have our own beliefs about what ShrubCo has done and how he broke the laws, but can we prove it? I know I can't, without evidence that would surface during hearings.

Remember Impeachment is a punishment, and a rebuke. You don't punish a criminal before his hearing before his peers!

The best thing we could all do is push for oversight hearings and let the chips fall!

[truedelphi]

9. Cynthia McKinney has already done that, right?

At least there was talk of it last week, and yesterday
the scrolling trailer on either CNN or MSNBC said her articles of
impeachment included not only Bush but Cheney as well!

[bryant69]

10. The Alien Reticulons would see it as a sign of weakness and invade

immediately.

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. What will happen?

Historians decades from now will say, "boy, they really should have jumped at that chance."

That's what will happen.

[cali]

13. You do realize

there's not a chance in hell that articles of impeachment would get an affirmative vote, if they were introduced immediately, right? They'd be dead on arrival.

[The Magistrate]

16. Indeed, Ma'am

Investigative hearings first, to establish grounds and rouse public anger, then the Articles, and the Senate trial, with its inevitable acquittal, that will provide plenty of ammunition for destruction of Republican Senators....

[Kelly Rupert]

15. We'd spend a year and a half mired in the last six years,

and aside from forcing Bush out six months early (in the most optimal scenario, with the most likely scenario being an embarassing victory for Bush), the 110th would get even less done than the 109th.

Edit: I'm assuming you mean in the next session, and they pass.

[cali]

18. Nope.

Articles of Impeachment would be swiftly voted down, blowing any real chance at bringing bushco to justice through the process. It wouldn't be easy to try again after blowing it.

[Kelly Rupert]

20. As I said

(but since only a few minutes before your post, perhaps too late for you to see) I was assuming that you were merely slightly confused and meant in the next session.

[cali]

25. Actually,

the use of the word tomorrow, was simply a rhetorical device.

[maxrandb]

19. Correct me if I'm wrong

but I think a President can be impeached even after leaving office.

[Kelly Rupert]

22. I don't think so.

The Contitution states 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.

He couldn't very well be removed from office if he wasn't in it--and he wouldn't be the President or a "civil officer" either.

Also, Nixon's impeachment process--the articles had been submitted to the floor from the Judiciary committee--stopped when he stepped down.

[QuestionAll...]

21. what is obvious to me is that criminal proceedings against *

should start Right Now in whatever avenues available.

the world can't afford to wait for just the right and opportune crystal ball time while he rampages about.

NOW. start the ball rolling NOW.

[maxrandb]

24. Absolutely QA

Impeachment is a "political" solution. Criminal acts require criminal prosecution. Wouldn't want to be accused of coddling criminals now, would we?

[QuestionAll...]

28. if impeachment is only a political solution - fug that. the world wants real justice.

this talk about long-going, on-going investigations...

what's to investigate further about what the slug-in-chief has done to the constitution in regards to the NSA slime he signed off on? it's right in front.

[maxrandb]

29. Near as I can tell

the Senate can convict..err..I mean, vote for impeachment, but they can't sentence anyone to prison or fines. They have no enforcement authority. They can only remove from office.

[cali]

26. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

And we'd blow the chances of effectively impeaching bushco, if we did it without investigations first.

[MrCoffee]

23. we'll all be really really depressed when the Senate convenes.

[ieoeja]

27. Compare Clinton and Nixon

Nixon: investigation conducted in the open and televised to the public over the course of several months with cross-examining by N supporters resulting in resignations and disgrace for N and his people

Clinton: investigation conducted in secret grand jury with no cross-examinations by C supporters allowed resulting in resignations and disgrace for ... Republicans who tried pushing through the impeachment


Conclusion: you can't just fucking impeach the president because YOU are convinced he deserves it. You MUST convince the American people it is necessary. And to do that you have to conduct a lengthy, fair and open investigation for all to see.

Or to put it even more simply, why would anyone want to repeat 1998/9 instead of 1972/3? For that matter, there is a moral imperative here. Or do you not believe your political enemies deserve a fair trial?