Law and Order: They are guilty, and you know the jury won't convict. Proceed anyway?

[DFW]

Although I don't get American TV here, I have seen some "Law and Order"
episodes dubbed into German. What is interesting is that sometimes the
bad guys get away with it, and the prosecuting team sometimes sees it
coming, but proceeds anyway. It's their job.

Project this onto Congress: the House Democrats (the prosecution) know
that the bad guys (Cheney/Bush/Gonzales) are guilty, but they know equally
that the jury (US Senate with 49½, including Liebrman, Republicans) will
never have the votes to convict.

Two options: Proceed anyway, so at least the accusations and evidence
are brought before the people, or drop the idea, as there are plenty of
other cases to pursue that will result in conviction?

At first, I was totally against launching an impeachment, as there is no
way it would result in conviction and removal from office. After all, it
backfired on the 1998 Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton, and history
already records it as a dirty grudge move with no legal foundation.

The Republicans would have some ammunition against us, as they would scream
that an impeachment would only be an unjustified payback for the Clinton
impeachment, and while that is not only untrue, and their boys are guilty
as sin (or worse), the fact remains that the effort would be just as unsuccessful
as the effort to unseat Clinton.

But, and it's a big BUT, we would also get the chance to hear the charges
against Cheney/Bush/Gonzo brought out in public, and their defense would
necessarily be rather lame, as their high crimes and misdemeanors are not
something that happened behind closed doors, but rather a matter of public
record. Republican Congressmen stepping up to their defense would have to give
their Democratic opponents in the 2008 election some powerful ammunition
the minute they opened their mouths. The Republican Senators voting against
conviction (presumably all) would have some pretty lame excuses for voting
the way they did, and I'm sure those up for tight re-election battles are
terrified of having to enunciate them on prime time news.

It's a decision I'm frankly glad I don't have to make. Sure I want to see
Cheney/Bush/Gonzo tossed out of office and into prison. Sure I don't want
to give the radical right the chance to point the finger at us for instituting
a grudge match, which, while not true, they would scream in the MSM ad nauseam,
and convince plenty of voters who shold know better, but don't want to.
And sure, I would love to see an eloquent listing of the crimes of this
administration listed one by one on the Senate floor with the whole world
watching and listening.

We lose, and we win. I'm sure Pelosi has been bombarded with both sides of
this argument since about 10 minutes after the results of the 2006 election
were announced.

It's easy to say "impeach!" and be right. It's just as easy to say, "don't
impeach, as we'll never get the conviction," and be right. But I don't see
either answer as complete or very satisfying, even if the choice is either/or.

This is gnawing at me like few political questions. It's like a marriage
proposal. The answer is either yes or no. There is no "none of the above."

[napi21]

1. I actually think that's the underlying reason for all the hearings.

I think the Dem leadership said Impeachment in off the table in an effort to thwart exactly what you said...accusations that this is a grudge match, but if, during the hearings, if enough starteling information is discovered that creates such a public uproar and the PEOPLE scream for impeachment, then the Dems can say "We didn't go after them searching for impeachable offenses, but our citizens demanded it after hearing XXXXXXXXXXX.

[dave_p]

3. That's been my belief too

... but it has to move along. Watergate went on for what, 15 months without the final vote? That suits me fine, but it means getting the main act started soonish.

[dave_p]

2. Yes. Proceed

Either way, the verdict comes on 4 Nov 2008. And it won't be limited to a few hundred Congresscritters: in fact I'm rather partial to the idea of leaving it open.

Instead of searching for impeachable offences maybe we need to be thinking what key policy departures are free of impeachanble offences. I'm f'ed if I can think of any.

OK, I understand Dems wanting to keep things cool. I haven't accused the party in Congress of betrayal or sellout: I just think they were plain wrong. Kicking off the main act will go a long way to righting that error. Time's running out, and I see ever less downside.

[MrSlayer]

4. "...history already records it as a dirty grudge move with no legal foundation."

Yes, exactly. The reason they made a mockery of the impeachment process was that so when the Coup took place and serious impeachable offenses would go on under the next "President", railing against the abuses would seem as ridiculous as the things they did. It was a total set up.

:tinfoilhat:

[EST]

5. In human relationships, integrity and square dealing are of enormous importance.

I am of the opinion that corruption and criminal behavior, at least when it affects other people than one's self, should always be reacted to in the strongest possible terms.
  "Victim-less crimes," those activities that affect only the actor and are considered to be criminal merely because they may violate some "ick factor" in the mind of an observer, are not in this category. Sexual behavior between consenting adults, personal drug use, even chronic alcoholism-as long as it has no significant effect outside of the actor-"moral depravity" limited to consenting adults, those things are not the fodder of public condemnation.

Even though an effort to correct bad actors and actions may be doomed to failure, that effort must be made - if for no other reason - to signify the stark disapproval of society for such actions.

When one occupies a position of leadership, power and authority, public morality does, indeed, affect a large number of other people and should be weighed in the context of the effect it has on others and on the respect and moral authority of the country.

Clinton's getting his knob polished in the oval office, if it became public, should have been reacted to, since it has an effect beyond his private life, although the republican plotting, moral indignation and attempt to remove him from office were beyond the pale. However, Clinton should have known that he was surrounded by ravening weasels and his insistence on accommodating his sexual proclivities calls his judgment into question-a serious issue in light of his political position.

Cheneybush and the corrupt cabal he swings with should be impeached and the attempt made to remove and punish them, even if it weren't successful, because it would signify that as a country we do not accept nor condone such behavior.

[Greyhound]

6. I could be wrong, but I think the electorate is looking for the Democrats

to proceed with what everybody knows is the right thing to do, whether they win or lose. I've maintained for years the people don't vote for Repbliks because they agree with their positions, but because they take those stands and stand by them.

By contrast the Democrats (the party, not the people) are constantly shifting back and forth looking for some magic combination of platform positions or catch phrase that will convince the mythical undecided voter to cast their ballots for them. We favor women's right to autonomy over their own bodies, but we'll compromise it a little if you'll just vote for us. We are the party of the working persons and minorities, except of course, if screwing them over will bring in a pile of corporate dollars for our campaigns.

People don't trust the Democrats anymore because they have, too often, proven themselves untrustworthy.

As I said in the subject, I could be wrong, but I could also be right and we haven't seen it tried. One thing we do know for sure, what they've been doing for the last 30 years isn't working, so a change is definitely called for.

[DFW]

7. Again, maybe, maybe not

I was last in the States a couple of weeks ago, in Washington D.C., and
the opinions were as divided as ever. There was wide agreement on the two
points: yes they deserve it, and yes, it won't work.

After that, no two opinions were identical--so what else is new?

[Greyhound]

13. The next time you're here, if its possible, get out of DC, the nation is not nearly as divided as

you think. We won the last election, in spite of the massive election fraud, for one reason, and one reason only, end this war, period. When my dim-witted conservative acquaintances in Texas and Florida (two of the most deluded, narrow-minded, populations in the nation), not to mention, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Georgia, are telling me that they voted for Democratic candidates for the first time in their lives just to end this pointless bloodbath, it seems pretty clear that we won the last election on that one issue.

Now that congress has exposed themselves as the worthless corporate shills that they are, these same people are now telling me, "fuck it why bother to vote at all". I worked hard to convince them that it was important to cast their ballots and now I have no more credibility with them, politically speaking. I'm sure my story is not unique, there were dozens of us here on DU saying the same things, talking, cajoling, begging, and pleading with conservatives and non-voters to do their civic duty and make their wishes known, only to be made fools of by those traitorous curs.

Well we did it, and we got fucked for our efforts.

Speaking for myself, I'm through. I will not spend another dime, nor a minute of my time trying to get these bastards elected. They've proved that they are not worthy and confirmed the worst beliefs of those people, who's votes they claim to respect, that they are only in it for themselves and their pathetic personal ambitions. If the only reason for sending these assholes to Washington is to "bring home the bacon", they may as well vote for the Republiks, they are much better at it.

[elocs]

8. There are many good DAs who will not bring an indictment

if they believe there is no chance of conviction. There is very little support for impeachment in the House and also in the Senate. Al Gore is against it as is my own Senator Feingold. It's not going to happen, so obsess about it if it makes you feel more self righteous and noble than those who know it will not happen and do not support it.

[doggyboy]

9. True that

For some odd reason, some DA's would prefer to invest their time in putting crooks in jail as compared to putting on a "symbolic" trial.

[elocs]

12. Let me give a criminal example in the city I live which happened years ago.

A husband and wife were murdered in their home, but their baby grandchild was unharmed in the bedroom. The police quickly caught the man who they were absolutely sure had committed the crime. There was a huge public outcry for justice and the elected DA was put under great pressure to indict, which he did, and the man was brought to trial. The result? Not guilty. The police and the DA should have investigated more, but everybody was so sure that the man accused would be convicted, but ultimately the man went free. The police never looked for anybody else because they were sure they had the murderer.

How much more so in the case of Bush when the jury is known and it is also known how most of them will vote. Only in this case much of the country's business will be put on hold while we conduct what in essence would be a show trial, much like that of Clinton. Bush's guilt and deserving conviction are clear, but the result would likely be the same. Also, the impeachment of Clinton and the impending impeachment of Nixon were the result of ongoing investigations and special prosecutors (Whitewater and Watergate). Al Gore is against it and says there would not be enough time and my own Senator Feingold, who was on the jury of the Clinton impeachment, does not want to see the country put through another impeachment trial that had no chance of conviction. Only the current investigations would or will bring any chance of conviction. Watergate did.

[mmonk]

10. Proceed or accept the end of legal restraints for the elected

and end of constitutional protections for the people. For one, an impeachment trial would get more coverage than the ignored hearings on C-Span. Once the truth is revealed to a larger public, the votes that might not be there when you start may well end up being there once the sun shines on the offenses.

[DFW]

11. Sorry about the delay

You have touched on the big IF

Of course NOW there are not the votes to convict and remove.
The big question is: in the course of hearings and a trial,
would the Democrats be able to uncover evidence so damning
that even the 17 Republican Senators necessary for removal
from office would say they have seen enough?

I suspect that Rove/Cheney are already prepared for this: they
would make it so cumbersome to uncover evidence that not enough
smoking guns would come to light in the course of a trial, even
if everybody knows it's there. The upside is that what CAN be
uncovered would be in the headlines and on the MSM TV news (except
Fox) every night.

Still a 50/50 to me.