George Bush Must Be Impeached by the House of Representatives.

[David Zephyr]

The likelihood of getting 66 U.S. Senators to go along with removing George Bush from his Presidency is next to none, but that does not mean that the House of Representatives should shirk their responsibilities to this nation, to the Constitution and for the sake of example. He is a criminal and even those within his party now admit it. He must be impeached. It may not be expedient, it may not be pretty, it may not be politically correct, but if we are to be a nation of laws then the President, who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the Untied States must be impeached.

And it matters not to me the fact that Richard Cheney is the Vice President. That is not the issue that we face. The President has violated his constitutional responsibilities, took this nation to war intentionally knowing he was misleading the public, has illegally spied on American citizens, has detained American citizens in violation of the Constitution, and more.

He must be impeached. If not, we mean nothing, our laws mean nothing and our entire judicial system is a joke.

IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

[Vincardog]

1. IMPEACH THE ( p)RESIDENT and all his evil enablers

[NVMojo]

2. would that work? the House of Reps?

[David Zephyr]

4. Yes. The House can impeach him just as it did Bill Clinton.

We would need 15 Republicans in the Senate along with all the Democrats to remove him from office, but that matters not as far as the House impeaching him goes.

He can be impeached. He should be impeached. He must be impeached.

[Kelly Rupert]

13. If he isn't convicted, an impeachment would be a huge victory for him n/t

[elehhhhna]

21. baloney. Impeachment is NEVER a victory for the impeached.

[rinsd]

24. Johnson & Clinton would disagree.

History has shown their impeachments to be more politically driven than anything else.

[tavalon]

25. And history will show that this one wasn't politically motivated

at least not in the way that Clinton's was. I didn't even realize Johnson was impeached.

[Kelly Rupert]

26. Andrew, not Lyndon B

And Andrew Johnson kinda deserved it, IMO. He was rather incompetent, and regularly ignored the law. He reminds me in a few ways of Bush.

[tavalon]

36. Thanks

I knew about that one but for some reason LBJ is the one who came up in my mind and totally obliterated the other Johnson.

[rinsd]

37. Hopefully it will.

I was merely disagreeing with the statement that impeachment is some sort of permanent stain.

Clinton was obviously chased from day one. Andrew Johnson pissed off members of his own party and the Radical Republicans decided to impeach on rather flimsy grounds.

[Orsino]

53. Ask Clinton whether he preferred being impeached.

It was a long, long embarrassment for him and for the nation, and was only pursued so as to tar him. Politically driven it was--a political weapon that paralyzed the his presidency, wielded by those who knew it would not result in a conviction.

[Poiuyt]

10. The House impeaches, the Senate convicts

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. There We Go Puttin The Impeachment Cart Before The Investigatory Horse Again.

Thorough and official congressional investigations first. Build a solid mountain of irrefutable evidence that basically begs for support from other members of congress and the American people. Do it thorough, do it right. Only then, afterwards, should talk of impeachment begin.

Unless you just want a dog and pony show without any legitimacy whatsoever.

[wundermaus]

5. Instead of mountains of corpses you would prefer...

a stained dress?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. So To What Address Should I Send The Strawman Of The Year Award? n/t

[wundermaus]

42. Directly to the Strawman himself -

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

[chknltl]

55. Welcome to the Democratic Underground vmaus

If you don't mind, I just bookmarked your homepage. :patriot:
:toast:

[David Zephyr]

7. I'm not putting that "horse before the cart".

There must be immediate hearings and investigations by multiple committees with sworn statements.

There will be enough evidence by Summer '06 that will move the public to accept impeachment as a House responsibility.

But the House can not back away from its duties.

No Republican will be able to suggest he shouldn't be impeached by the House after what they did to Clinton once the sordid truth begins to be revealed.

But investigations and hearings that lead to impeachable offenses (Bush's admitted FISA violations alone are enough for impeachment) without formal impeachment by the House is unacceptable.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. You Appear To Be Arguing With Yourself.

In a nutshell, you just repeated everything I said. Thorough investigations, building a pile of evidence, if evidence is adequate then comes time for impeachment.

Whether you intended to or not, all you just said was what I said to begin with. Yet you were putting the cart before the horse by declaring impeachment take place up front. To do so would be a reckless and futile dog and pony show. To do it the way I stated, and you reiterated, might actually lead to something useful.

[tavalon]

27. And you just described exactly what will happen

Don't let Madame Pelosi scare you. She's just saying the politically appropriate thing. When the public demands impeachment and they will demand impeachment, the House will impeach him. I think it will be closer to Fall of next year but otherwise, you have it spot on. Relax, they'll do their duty.

[tbyg52]

40. Yes, there must be investigations first,

even though we (or at least I) find them redundant. The people who haven't been paying attention must be informed (sorry, but they must), and these investigations *should* be headline news even on the corporate media.

[David Zephyr]

8. Impeaching Bush will signal to the entire Muslim world that Americans are also angry.

It's the best thing on earth for us to do. Impeach this president.

[Booster]

11. Absolutely!!!! If we are to ever regain credibility throughout the

world, we have to show them that we are as upset as they are. We can not, and should not, just say "oh, well, shit happens" and let it go. If we do that even I will not respect our laws.

[David Zephyr]

28. It certainly will signal to the world that Bush no longer speaks for us.

And that will begin a new page in our relationship with our fellow men and women on the planet.

I also believe it will reduce hostility toward our nation.

[nolabels]

56. Not so sure he ever spoke for the majority of us

Though I do agree the rest of world will also know it when those who are wielding the political power force their hand. The petty trifles and stubbornness of * will be a saving grace for rest of us when that happens

[chknltl]

51. Thank You...

My sentiments exactly.

Might I point out that you just tied the war on terror to the concept of impeachment? Connecting the war on terror to stuff is a well used neocon trick. Lookin' into your library records, bank transactions, listenin' in on your phone calls and etc. all because of the war on terror. Turnabout is fair play I say! Except that this time it is being used in an honest fashion as opposed to the snow jobs we have endured over the years.
So say it loud and proud: "We need to get the impeachment process underway in order to combat the war on terror!!!" :patriot:

[Kelly Rupert]

12. That's a great idea. An impeachment with no hope of conviction.

That's all we need. For nothing to happen for the next two years but a large trial, at the end of which George W. Bush is "vindicated" with an acquittal.

[pacalo]

14. In the absence of impeachment, you're hoping for conviction?

From where would this conviction come?

[Disturbed]

15. Impeach Cheney first!

The evidence of his Crimes is available. Rep. Waxman has it. Impeachment is a trial. VP Cheney must go on trial. After he is convicted and fired move right onto Busholini. The evidence of his Crimes is available. The US Constitution is more than an old document. It is the Foundation of America.

[MrCoffee]

29. Impeachment in the House is not a trial.

If you must compare it to a criminal proceeding (which it most assuredly is not), compare it to a grand jury.

[David Zephyr]

30. There is a distinction between impeachment and removal from office.

He needs to be impeached by the House. That is vindication.

[lostinacause]

16. It is a massive waste of resources to impeach Bush.

Time and effort would be better spent improving policies and working to maintain a majority in the House and Senate and to regain the presidency.

[Ladyinblack]

17. If he is allowed two more years

What shape will we be in in two more years? I have yet to see Bush abide by any rules but his own, so the thought that there are going to be positive changes just do not make sense to me. What can be gained by not impeaching him? He certainly deserves this and worse. Are we going to allow him to continue to destroy all we believe in before we do anything?

At least impeachment would keep him occupied. Then perhaps he would stop making such wise decisions about the constitution, the right to a fair trail, torture, etc.

I just do not see value in not impeaching him. I am certainly willing to listen but look where this man has taken us.

[lostinacause]

45. Consider the worst case scenario. The impeachment process begins but there is no political will

to impeach Bush. If this is the case then any hope of a successful working relationship, even a self interested one, is shot. The veto can and would be used quite frequently resulting in no progress being made for two years. Voters would be very alienated though it would be unclear which party would triumph in the next election. Given the threshold necessary for impeachment I believe this is the most likely outcome.

The other case is that the impeachment is successful. Because the impeachment process is ugly and unpredictable we don't know which party will benefit from it. The Democrats run the risk of looking as though they are wasting resources and bringing America into a divisive process. It is therefore possible that the Republicans could be back in control in two years. A year of opportunity and significant political power would been squandered to see an outcome many would consider worse then putting up with Bush in the current situation for another two years.

The best case of a successful impeachment would have a year of resources devoted to trying to impeach Bush (and likely Cheney at the same time). So let’s say that there are some benefits to having Bush impeached. These start to be realized after a year. In the mean time the situation in Iraq becomes a secondary concern as there will definitely be hostilities between the Democrats and the Republicans. Even if this did lead to the troops being brought home earlier there would be dire consequences for the area. Instead of looking for a solution that left Iraq as stable as possible, the result would be a poorly thought out exit at the expense of the Iraqis and the already dismal reputation of America. Other critical concerns such as the economy and the education will not get the consideration they desperately need. There will be a number of other things that will be neglected because of the impeachment process. Perhaps the benefits in the second year end up outweighing the costs. If they do this is the best case scenario. Surely when you factor the risk impeachment does not have the same appeal.

I believe we have seen a willingness of Bush to accept better approaches in Iraq. He has a considerable stake in seeing the mission to a reasonable end therefore, if only because he is being forced, we will see an adequate exit approach. Other policies may be more difficult to implement with Bush as president; though, based on the alternatives this is something I believe that the Democrats have to accept.

[Spurt]

22. Have you considered the...

cost of not impeaching?

I think that speedy investigation and impeachment would be the best use of resources, both human and fiscal.

Until he goes nothing significant will be achieved due to prolific signing statements, obfuscation, delay, etc.

By the end of his term what will the status be considering current trends?
5,000 US and 1M locals dead in Iraq?
The national debt doubled again?
The dollar worth half its present value?
A draft to support the war in Iran?
Unemployment doubled?
Unaffordable gas?
30% wiped off home values?
Terminal decline?

What is the cost of keeping the idiot?

[lostinacause]

46. Do you really believe that all of these trends are going to continue if Bush is not impeached?

[Scout1071]

41. If he stays for 2 more years, how many soldiers will be "wasted resources?"

You don't understand...this is a moral imperative. Sometimes that's not always the easiest thing.

[lostinacause]

47. The moral obligations are to the American and Iraqis people.

Dragging America through the impeachment process is not worth while and will likely not improve the outcome in Iraq as the Democrats currently have a significant amount of influence over policies towards Iraq (see previous post).

[chknltl]

52. Right on both counts but I disagree with your conclusion.

The moral obligations are to the American and Iraqi people: Absolutely correct!

Dragging us through impeachment... not worthwhile: No, we disagree here.

Tell me this, Do you condone bushco's crimes against the citizens of Iraq? Of course I know, my fellow DUer, that you do not. So if many of the Iraqi people hold America accountable for bush's crimes, (as much of the Middle East does right this very minute), how should WE THE PEOPLE respond? The impeachment process is the right response here. If we do not do this then we shall prove to those folks that we condone bush's crimes. It no longer matters how you or I see it, it no longer matters that we are members of the Democratic Underground and speak out against bush, what matters is how the Middle East sees it. I argue that they need to see that the American people really are aware of what happened over in their homeland and through our very own Democratic process's we choose to do the right thing about it.

We can start worrying about putting out the fires bushco started after stopping the fire-starter. To try and do it the other way around, puttin' out the brushfires first and lettin' the fire-starter keep on startin' fires is a recipe for another 9-11 or worse! I for one don't want that target stuck on my country, and I know that you feel the same way on that. We reduce the odds of an attack against us with a strong messege...the best one right now can be spoken by the people of America and it begins with the impeachment process.

Should we experience another act of terrorism against America I am quite confident that the terrorist will feel absolutely justified and his justifications will be much more than "religious" as the freepers love to say. I am not saying that we won't have acts of terrorism against us in the future, I argue that it is necessary to reduce his primary justifications. Right now, thanks to bushco, the terrorist leaders have a great many reasons to convince their growing ranks to pursue their course of actions against the American people. If the terrorist leaders only have extremist religious reasons for their acts then their legitimacy will be dramatically reduced thereby reducing their ranks.

By removing the bushwhackers and by working to repair the damage they have done we will regain a measure of support from the rest of the world and reduce ourselves as a target for future terrorist attacks. As no man is an island, no country is either, we need every ounce of support we can get if we are to resolve the mess the bush crime family made of the Middle East...this simply can not be done until those bastards are out of the way. I hope you see, my fellow DUer, that our goals are the same here...my arguments to see this impeachment placed on the table are not partisan nor are they based in my honest hate for bush, I am looking out for all of us and that includes the peoples of the entire Middle East as well. I see no other course to peace. The world is watching.
:patriot:
c

[lostinacause]

58. I'm going to break this up into themes if you don't mind. First regarding the impeachment

my concern it two-fold. First I have some doubts as to whether the impeachment will be successful (see 45). If it is not successful it would be extremely detrimental to America. Beyond what I mentioned in the referenced post it would also hurt America's reputation in a similar fashion to what you suggest not impeaching Bush does. A failed attempt to impeach Bush would look as though congress wants him in place.

The main reason for not wanting the impeachment is not that I think he doesn't disserve it but rather that current issues are too important deal with after Bush is impeached. (If it appears he is going to be impeached it is less likely that he will cooperate with Democrat initiative.) The next year will be pivotal in determining the fate of Iraq. We cannot wait until after Bush is impeached to start these policies and once the impeachment process takes hold it will be increasingly difficult to take the necessary steps to ensuring the stability of Iraq and improving the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Further, with the emergence of a world economy not only does America need to overhaul the education and regulatory system, America also needs to look at how to implement equality policies new environment. These all need to be done sooner rather then later and should be the focus of the government.

(I will get to the rest later)

[chknltl]

62. Your doubts are valid but

A failed impeachment in this instance will be a clear message to the American people that they have lost control over their government...I do not believe anyone in Washington is planning such a message nor do I see that such a message will ever need to be sent. I say this because I strongly feel, in the end, that the American people will show an overwhelming support for the dismantling of the bush evil empire. As more and more of the American voters learn of bushco's crimes as revealed during the impeachment process, that support for impeachment can only grow as well.

I do not see how the impeachment process need, (this time), interfere with normal government operations. Yes there are a great many issues that face America and we expect our Government to address them as you suggest, but the impeachment process will aid not hinder in the addressing of those issues. As more and more of bushco's crimes become apparent to the American voter, the demand for accountability will grow. Partisanship will greatly diminish under the presence of that process as both sides will distance themselves from the President's viewpoints. Unlike the Clinton impeachment process which divided our country the bush impeachment process will unite our country...(ironic huh?).

That conclusion hinges on support for impeachment by the majority of the American people. If the people are divided as they were during the Clinton Impeachment process then the bush impeachment process could indeed be chaotic at best. I strongly sense that this will not be the case this time. There are just too many valid reasons bush has supplied the American people with to support his removal from office. As I see it: the more the public becomes aware, the more their collective anger will grow. The last election is proof of that growing awareness. This impeachment process can only contribute to that growing awareness and that my friend, will will be the crucial key which brings about the much needed demise of the bush regime.

I feel that the scenario in which the impeachment process does NOT happen entails a calmed American public. At this point the American public is far from calmed, the last election was but a harbinger of this...the "sleeping giant" we in the DU have been shouting for these last 6 years has awakened. (Yes we did our part and yes it has made a difference.) To be quite frank, I feel that the upcoming "Peoples Impeachment" of the bush crime family is a good thing for the safety of America, for the salvation of American Democracy and for the potential of the better world we Americans would envision ourselves to be participants in. :patriot:

[lostinacause]

65. Regardless of what happens let's hope for the best.

Thanks for the insight.

[lostinacause]

66. Regrading the third paragraph. I agree with the notion that there are other objectives

that the drive the adherence to radical beliefs. The treatment of the Middle East both in the past and the present is a driving force behind the spread of radical beliefs. However I don't believe it is as simple as just not giving them any legitimate reasons to hate us. The environment in the Middle East makes it so that even if we were to act as we ought to, there would still be resentment that would manifest itself in the form of radical beliefs. Because of this we have a vested interest in playing a role in the peace and development in the region. The primary methods should be through propaganda and through aid and development. We need to push democratic reform and peaceful coexistence in the region while enabling the people to have a strong role in the shaping of their institutions.

[Swamp Rat]

18. k&r for impreachment

[JNelson6563]

19. No one's ever deserved it more

So much blood on his hands!

[rustydog]

20. The Constitution demands this criminal be impeached

Our entire systemof government was set up in this fashion. We are compelled by the constitution that refers to impeachment 6 or 7 times in its text. Impeachment is our weapon to remove an elected tyrant,over-reaching egomaniacal fool or your common criminal like Nixon.

Cost should never be considered in impeachment. Shit, almost 3000 dead americans since the illegal invasion of Iraq...isn't that to high a cost? The national treasury bankrupted, americans starving as the rich get richer, isn't that too high a cost for us topay?

Impeach Bush and his Dick. Now.

[BuyingThyme]

23. kcik

[MrCoffee]

31. YES! Then give Congress right back to the Repubs in 2008!

What a brilliant idea!

[David Zephyr]

32. You have little faith in the American people.

Believe me, there are going to be hearings and multiple investigations that are going to open up so much rotten conduct and activity that there will be a cry for impeachment.

As I point out, there are not enough votes in the Senate to remove him, but it will put the Republicans in a box to justify his crimes just as it did during Watergate.

Watergate led to Jimmy Carter defeating Gerald Ford.

Give the American people some credit. They have already turned on Bush.

Impeachment by the House, perhaps as early as this coming summer or by fall, will reduce hostility in the Muslim world toward our country. It clearly demonstrates that Bush is not acting or speaking for the American people. It will humiliate him to the entire world and that will be a good thing for everyone.

[MrCoffee]

34. Impeachment is NOT a popularity contest,

it's as equally important as habeas corpus, or due process of law, or any other Constitutional provision, and should not be undertaken lightly.

You are giving nothing but political reasons for impeachment, none of which are valid, Consitutional grounds for bringing Articles of Impeachment against anyone.

If Congress investigates and finds hard evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", then impeachment AND conviction are entirely appropriate. Reducing hostility in the Muslim world and showing disfavor are utterly spurious reasons and as worthy of contempt as the blue dress.

[David Zephyr]

38. Go away.

I gave reasons other than "political" in the OP.

"The President has violated his constitutional responsibilities, took this nation to war intentionally knowing he was misleading the public, has illegally spied on American citizens, has detained American citizens in violation of the Constitution, and more."

Clearly my opinion is that after hearings and investigations, impeachment proceedings should begin. Are you suggesting that you do not believe that Bush has violated the constitution? He has admitted to abusing FISA. That's breaking the law.

I am not suggesting that impeachment is done "lightly".

When you high-jack someone's thread, don't put words in their mouth. It dishonors you, not me.

Now go away.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

33. Impeach, Impeach, Impeach

eom

[RiverStone]

35. KICK & read this:

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/impeachment_1.htm

Thank You. Lets keep the impeachment train moving.

[David Zephyr]

39. Thanks for the great link, RiverStone. I hope everyone reads it.

Appears that we have a few nervous nellies here about impeachment. It's the Tom Daschle / Dick Gephardt "Abused Democrat Syndrome" no doubt.

Thanks for your great link.

[guyton]

43. Strengthen the Constitution

We can't shrink from pursuing justice based on fear of potential future political fallout.

Bush and Cheney are war criminals that deserve the full exposure of their crimes and impeachment.

His signing statements show he has no concern for the balance of power, let alone the constitution.

Frankly, their crimes are so obvious, so blatant, so ... well ... criminal, that any senator who doesn't vote for conviction had better not expect to win reelection. Republican or Democrat.

Save the country, save the world, remove them from office!

[yellowdogmi]

44. my math is a little slow. Do we own enough state house's to

begin the process there? I also want several supreme court justices impeached also. For ever leading us down this road. If mainstream dems would support this we could eliminate the PNAC crowd for a long time.

[question everything]

48. State houses have nothing to do with impeachment

strictly a vote by members of Congress.

But I agree with others that we promised to be a Congress that does accomplish something and spending time and effort on a process that will not lead to removal from office is counter productive.

We have the deficit, the deterioration of the middle class, the lack of access to health care and to adequate retirement and, of course, the continuation of the mess in Iraq.

Yes, a commission of inquiry, perhaps a special prosecutor to find out the lies that led us there, but article of impeachment, I am afraid will show us as partisan and as vengeful as.. the Republicans were when they went after Clinton from day one.

[yellowdogmi]

60. Check your constitution.

If enough state houses forward articles of impeachment on to the us congress we can start impeachment that way. That is probably the one avenue we can pursue which will show our new majority leaders the path they need to follow.

[Kelly Rupert]

63. I don't believe that's actually in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
While there very well may be provisions in the House rules of order for state legislatures to forward articles of impeachment, I don't think such a provision actually exists in the Constitution.

[yellowdogmi]

67. I stand corrected.

It is not in the constitution. It was in Jefferson's rules for running the house of representatives. Ooops. I think the essence of what I said still applies.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_sw_060424_california_becomes_s.htm

[MonkeyFunk]

64. Do you have citation?

I don't see such a provision.

[Vidar]

49. You have my vote.

[B Calm]

50. Bush and Cheney both need to be IMPEACHED! That's the dems mandate!

[chknltl]

54. Thank you David Zephyr

I am seeing more and more of my fellow DUers coming out of the woodwork in favor of impeachment, I am surprised that it is such a tough sell though. Seems to me if a poll were taken a mere 6 months ago there would have been at least 90% in favor of impeachment with the other 10% suffering some serious flames. I am guessing that right now that same poll might be very different, perhaps as dramatic as a fifty-fifty split. There are a great many of my fellow DUers whom I have the deepest respects for, who are in direct opposition to impeachment. I hope that our arguments sway many of them back. It is through threads such as this we begin to convince our fellow DUers of the needs to place impeachment on the table. Most of us who favor this realize that this is not about politics or our despisel of the bush crime family anymore. I hope our recently elected representatives are watching... I can guarantee to you that the world is.

[Strawman]

57. It's inevitable

Someone is going to introduce a resolution again at the beginning of the next Congress and over the course of the first six months of the year, as this president continues on his disastrous course in Iraq and as investigations document his abuses for the record, more people will support proceedings.

I expect that the pure political momentum against Bush will outpace and overwhelm the formal, constitutional process of impeachment and removal proceedings, just like with Nixon. Eventually some Republican(s),(possibly even before or along with Democratic power elites), will call for him to resign, and once there is that kind of unstoppable momentum, he will. Trying to impeach someone over a blow job isn't going to generate that kind of momentum, but this will.

I'd say it's even money that he is still the president in a year from now. I bet he resigns. I think there is just a general feeling in the air that this cannot go on much longer and I'm not alone in sensing it.

[porphyrian]

59. I didn't realize so many people were so tight with Senators around here.

Most of us can't say with absolute certainty what they'll do in the coming year or two. However, what is certain is that the entire rap sheet of impeachable offenses that already exist today coupled with the additional offenses that will be revealed in the coming investigations, along with the growing dissemination of this information to the public, should have a non-partisan bloodthirsty mob storming the White House before this time next year, if not sooner, so any Senator that doesn't want to appear complicit in this administration's treason would do well to represent the will of their constituency.

[pnwmom]

68. We can do investigations without calling for impeachment now,

before we've even started. But as we do the investigations, if the situation develops that a conviction in the Senate is possible, we can go ahead with impeachment proceedings.

But I don't think we'll have gained anything if we impeach him -- in other words, indict him -- and we don't win a conviction in the Senate. I don't want him to be able to walk away saying that the Senate vote vindicated him.

In other words, I would rather drag him through the mud of investigations and not give him a chance to shower it all off with a "not guilty" vote in the Senate.

[symbolman]

61. Well said

and I think the link with terrorism is TOTALLY VALID.

This person who has NOT abided by the Constitution as he SWORE TO DO, and that is a REQUIREMENT, needs to be Impeached.

His lack of respect for the Constitution and attempt to subvert the Branches of the Govt and effectively refute them is another reason.

He's made every man, woman and child in this country a TARGET for terrorists with his MisAppropriation of Authority NOT GRANTED to him by the Constitution.. therefore he must be Impeached BY the USE of that Document, which is the LAW of this Land.

Totally agree, tho I think they should go one step further and realize that this man is insane. Not just Morally bankrupt, but Mentally ILL.

Thanks for saying it, at first I thought it a bad idea due to potential repercussions, but as I see the right wing realizing that he's KILLING the GOP, I'm of the mind that they WILL Impeach him, if only to save their own asses, and that's result I can live with.

It would be the first thing this right wing run do nothing Congress would have done RIGHT.