What I don't understand about not having the votes for impeachment argument

[madokie]

isn't impeachment the trial where evidence is submitted and questions asked under oath. I say we start the process and then let the chips fall where they may, at least try to 'get the votes' by a trial :shrug::wtf:over
maybe with the evidence all laid out on the table, so to say, it might be possible to get the votes needed, wouldn't one think??


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement. The second stage is called conviction.

Impeachment is so rare that the term is often misunderstood. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact, it is only the legal statement of charges, paralleling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict.

[ShortnFiery]

1. "... start the process and then let the chips fall where they may"

Exactly! That's exactly what we must keep emailing and calling our illustrious Congress Members about ... every damn day! They are NOT listening but they need to know that if they IGNORE the will of their Constituents, they WILL LOSE to their next Democratic Challenger in the 2008 primaries.

It's NOT too late. Hell, at a minimum start impeachment proceedings against Gonzales. Don't tell us that there's insufficient evidence because that's pure BUNK. :grr:

[porphyrian]

2. Yes! Kick to cure some ignorance. - n/t

[Fridays Child]

3. If they really don't have the votes, there are more DINOs than we realize.

It takes only a simple majority to impeach. And I agree with you that, once the evidence is in the public domain, not only would impeachment be successful but so would removal. At the end of the day, members of Congress would do this because they want to keep their jobs.

[madokie]

4. I'm really getting disillusioned by it all

I mean it is our country we're loosing, our children and grandchildren's future

[spotbird]

13. I feel your pain. nt

[krispos42]

yeah, but it takes 2/3 to convict

And if you don't convict, he walks.

But if you don't try, he walks anyway.

I think that enough evidence would come out during the impeachment hearings in the House and the trial in the Senate that people would be coming out en masse for his conviction and removal from office.

[Independent_Liberal]

198. Exactly.

The hearings need to bring out all the evidence and that's when you will start to hear the drumbeats and the sound of feet stomping through the streets of DC and people camping out on the steps of the Capitol.

[havocmom]

5. Impeachment is NOT the trial, It is like an indictment. Trial follows in Senate

And THERE is a problem - we do not have a whomping majority, what with turncoat DEMs like Joe and Cheney as President of the Senate.

[spotbird]

12. Exactly,

The House impeaches, the senate convicts. Even if it were voted down there would be a record of the crimes. Members of Congress would then be on the record as supporting the rise of fascism in America, which is exactly what is happening in DOJ.

[madokie]

16. and i guess that is the real reason,

can't be having any records now can they. the sorry bast*rds anyway

[BuyingThyme]

39. Not really true.

...

The word “impeachment” may be used to mean several different things. Any member of the House may “impeach” an officer of the United States by presenting a petition or memorial, which is generally referred to a committee for investigation and report. The House votes to “impeach,” the meaning used in Sec. 4, when it adopts articles of impeachment. The Senate then conducts a trial on these articles and if the accused is convicted, he has been “impeached.”

...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag42_user.html

The media dumb down the word.

[madokie]

43. your last statement

is part of the problem. Impeachment is how we deal with people like this illegal criminal cabal who are squatting in our whitehouse.

it is bullshit to not at least try, simple as that.

[mikelgb]

55. John Roberts would preside over the Senate during trial

not Cheney

[spotbird]

61. It would also be on TV

so he'd have to at least present the pretense of impartiality.

[havocmom]

82. Not much of an improvement

Any more info about whether his adoption of those Irish kids was set up to circumvent Irish laws? I sorta lost track of that one.

[Dhalgren]

6. The reason that the Democratic Leadership does not want to impeach

is because they are afraid of what might happen. They do not actually want the whole truth out. They also might have to deal with the dictatorship out in the open - and they don't want that. As long as the appearance of the old Republic is still present, they can continue to hold office and manage their constituents; if the veil is dropped, all bets are off. No, the Democrats in congress do not want to impeach anybody - there's no money in it...

[madokie]

7. I guess that is why we must keep screaming our heads off

this is bullshit what is going on now. I'm not much of a writer but I am good at getting pissed and I'm pissed right now. bring the charges and lets have us a trial, then if there is not enough votes, then let it be but at least try not throw our hands up in the air and say theres nothing we can do because, if you get my gist

[Dhalgren]

10. Oh, I get you completely and agree 100%,

but it is not going to happen, because the Democratic Leadership does not want it to happen. We can only guess at their reasons, but the fact remains that they will not entertain impeachment, period. We can scream our heads off, but it will not happen - this is just who we are, now...

[madokie]

15. I just can't give up or give in,

then what I stand for is/was all in vain, ain't gonna happen. I must and will keep on fighting

[spotbird]

17. You said it above,

they are quite comfortable as things are, why rock the boat? This joke actually makes them look worse than if they did nothing, to those paying attention, the problem is too few people are.

Well, you can stick a fork in me, I'm done.

[Individualist]

64. As long as DLCesspool remains in control of the party,

there will be no impeachment. They don't care what the voters want.

[Zandor]

113. Why do you think voters want impeachment?

The Democrats winning a majority in the congress doesn't translate into a majority of the voters favoring impeachment. Few Democrats ran on a platform that advocated impeachment.

[Individualist]

125. A better question is why do you think they don't?

Here are only three examples of confirmation.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14897

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Zogby_Americans_support_consideration_of_impeachment_1104.html

All one has to do is do a google search and you'll find many more.

[Zandor]

158. Those polls don't support you

They are pre-loaded with assumptions (if Bush did this or that, should he be impeached) or ask if impeachment should be considered.

What Democrats ran on a platform of impeachment?

[Individualist]

164. You're obviously in denial.

I'm not a psychologist, so I can't help you with that.

[MonkeyFunk]

169. Interesting....

You're not the first person here to insist that a big majority of americans support impeaching the President, yet when asked to provide any evidence, you can't, and then turn around and insult the person asking for the evidence.

Since you want to throw around psychological terms, I'll say you're projecting.

[Individualist]

172. Evidence was provided

Attempts to spin polls don't change facts.

[MonkeyFunk]

174. No

the problem with your so-called evidence was pointed out immediately.

Can you find a poll that unambiguously shows a majority of americans favoring the impeachment of Bush?

Not one with qualifiers, not one that assigns relative priorities. Just one that asks "Should Bush be impeached?"

[Individualist]

175. I'll waste no more time looking up information when evidence has already been provided.

Spin does not change facts. Your insistence on finding a poll without qualifiers is an empty argument, and I'll waste no more time on silliness.

[MonkeyFunk]

178. Very typical response

of people who make claims, then can't back them up.

Asking people "If Bush did X, should he be impeached?" is meaningless. If you asked people "If Tom Hanks killed a man, should he be prosecuted?" the answer will be "of course".

The problem here is a pretty common fallacy wherein people tend to believe that their own opinions are far more popular than they actually are.

There is no evidence that a majority of Americans want Bush to be impeached, and the strength of your feelings on the subject doesn't change that.

And as has been asked before, which candidates last year ran on a platform of impeaching Bush?

The idea that Democrats were given a mandate to impeach Bush is just plain wrong.

[Individualist]

182. Very typical response

for someone who won't look up facts for himself. No one has said candidates ran on a platform of impeaching Bush, and I certainly did NOT say Democrats were given a mandate to impeach Bush. The fact is the majority of democratic voters support impeachment, and democratic leadership is ignoring us. Now - since you've been so persistent in being annoying with your empty arguments, spin and suppositions, welcome to my ignore list. You'll convince no one that impeachment is not imperative.

[MonkeyFunk]

185. LOL

you're putting me on ignore for asking you to back up your claims?

Yeah, that's some good arguin'!

Also, nice way to change the terms. I never argued that the majority of Democrats don't support imnpeachment. I asked about the majority of americans.

[madokie]

180. amen

and I aren't even religious.

[madokie]

176. cnn has had 'en as I believe msnbc also

I don't understand why you're so set on us not trying to impeach the bastages:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

179. Please

give us the links so we can see the actual polls.

I'm opposed to impeachment right now because it's bound to fail to result in conviction, thus vindicating Bush and harming Democrats. It's very simple.

[madokie]

181. ok hang on a little bit and I'll get back with you;-)

in the mean time have a look see.
that point is not important to what I wanted to learn in my op, sorry. arguing for arguing's sake has no apeal to me. I've voted in the damn things for crists sake.

[MonkeyFunk]

186. Sorry, but this isn't a tiny side point.

The whole crux of this argument relies on your claim that a "supermajority" of americans support impeachment, as you claimed.

[madokie]

188. Ok, I'm out of here

I've got a project in the shop I must get busy on so have fun. I've been putting it off way too long today already. peace

both cnn and msnbc have had polls that support my contention. IIRC sorry

[MonkeyFunk]

190. and a simple link to them

would make this discussion go much better.

[Zandor]

193. You ran off two of them

By asking them to show a link to a reputable poll saying a majority of Amreicans want Bush impeached, without qualification.

[Qutzupalotl]

194. Why does it have to be "without qualification"?

Especially if the polls ask things like, IF he lied about war, IF he engaged in illegal wiretapping...

These happen to be true and are not impossible to prove, so I would argue that they are a valid indicator of public mood.

I would even say the qualifiers are necessary. After all, who would want to impeach an innocent president?

[lonestarnot]

199. hmmmf. apparently had better things to do than argue with you.

People that are not polling for impeachment have been marginalized by inattention to American people and their desire to do so. I don't remember seeing a poll where impeachment yeah or neigh was put to the people. This people wants it and the majority here do. You might want to learn how to spell American.

[Individualist]

201. Exactly!

[Qutzupalotl]

195. Here's MSNBC's

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
Not scientific, but overwhelming.

I disagree that a failure to convict is a vindication. Impeachment is an indictment, and that would be appropriate, regardless of removal. (He'll be gone before too long anyway.)

[John Q. Citizen]

78. Yes. Impeachment proceedings would only interfer with promoting corporate

interests.

[gordianot]

84. You nailed it 100%

I quote "They do not actually want the whole truth out. They also might have to deal with the dictatorship out in the open"

I was told by a Democratic functionary that if all the crimes were called out in the open, prosecuted, and adjudicated there would no longer be a 2 party system. Those who have perpetrated the crimes have known this from the start. Not only is there no money in it the money holes will dry up. Hegel was right.

[wiggs]

177. Although it's debatable how much the dems are to blame, they

are nonetheless part of an overall government that has royally screwed up on all levels. The government -- all of them -- has diminished our country and has harmed others and the truth about that would be embarassing and damning for all of us but especially for those in charge.

I think one difference between us and dc dems is that we believe that more transparency and accountability will help heal our nation whereas the government wants to address the issue by letting off steam, calming people down, and then pushing the most embarrassing stuff to the back burner to eventually get lost. Hence hearings, threats of subpoenas, outraged statements (ie Biden on torture), open letters, promises of accountability that really go nowhere. The only real action has been the Libby case which was fortunately taken out of the hands of politicians and placed in the care of an independent prosecutor.

Sweeping extreme misdeeds under the rug is seen as safer than total truth and possible serious unrest, dissatisfaction, and criticism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. "We don't have the votes" = "The Blue Poodles" won't vote with the Dems.

A pathetic attempt to justify their recent caves and a rationalization for politics as usual. Instead of standing up to the Repugs and the right-wing LiebermanLite Dems, they appease them, while abandoning the left.

[madokie]

11. abandoning all of us

I would guarantee there is a super majority in America who want to see impeachment

[onenote]

30. do you have anything to back that up?

[madokie]

70. I suspect it could be googled up if one was so inclined

I've read several polls that indicate what I say is true

[MonkeyFunk]

91. Soyou make the claim

and when somebody asks for evidence, it's up to them to find your source?

That's not how it's supposed to work. The person making the claim has the burden of providing evidence for it.

[madokie]

107. I don't think it necessary to get bogged down because one is not paying attention

kinda like discussing a car wreck and then and then getting into an argument about the color of the cars

[MonkeyFunk]

111. So you just

operate from the position that your claim is obviously true.

Well it is not. There is no poll showing a supermajority of americans supporting impeachment. You made that up out of whole cloth, and now you can't back it up.

So instead of backing down, you throw the burden onto those who challenge your silly claim.

Yeah, that's good arguin'!

[onenote]

104. Can't find any.

Searched around. The most widely cited poll is the Newsweek poll that reported 28 percent of respondents would make impeachment a top priority, 23 percent would make it a lower priority and 44 percent wouldn't do it all. Even if you combine the first categories, you don't get anywhere close to a "supermajority."

If you define a supermajority as 2/3 its pretty clear that a "supermajority" for impeachment doesn't exist at this point. Could it in the future? Possibly. But most polls show disapproval ratings for chimpy in the high 50s, low 60s and since disapproval doesn't necessarily translate into support for impeachment, the numbers just aren't there.

[madokie]

110. that'll work

[onenote]

114. Huh? You "guaranteed" that there was a supermajority. And now you concede there isn't

Or, rather, you redefine "supermajority" to be 51 percent.

Okay. Whatever.

[madokie]

166. I've read polls that said there were a majority of Americans in favor of impeachment

I'm just not going to take the bait and spend my time looking them up, I know what I've read. peace ok. anyway this is not really important in the whole gist of this post IMhO

[MonkeyFunk]

187. It's vitally important

because impeachment is purely a political process, and your claim that a supermajority of americans support impeachment is vital to judging the wisdom of such a process.'

The sane thing to do is admit you were mistaken on your beliefs in what the polls said, rather than pretend that the evidence is out there, but you just can't be bothered to present it.

If the evidence was as obvious as you claim, you would've presented it 50 posts ago.

[lonestarnot]

200. Ben Afflack, or however he spells his name, types are more important than

lowly American working class.

[spotbird]

9. For the same reason the Democrats

wouldn't do anything substantive about the war, they believe things are fine the way they are. This "no confidence" crapola is to placate the base, but who do they think they're fooling?

[Dhalgren]

14. Yeah, it's the 'Status Quo Democrats"...

[dogday]

18. I have always said let's send a message

Even if we don't have the votes, let's send the message, let's see how the public falls behind it... If the public gets on board, politicians tend to follow suit....

[madokie]

21. yes exactly

I'm a recent first time granddad and I take my job 'seriesly!!!!'. If I'm not going to watch out for her who is?? well her parents but you know what i mean, methinks

[bigtree]

19. chips falling

what makes you think that will actually DO anything.

There's always the possibility that entering into the proceedings without a clear path to conviction could generate sympathy at the ineffective end and insulate the administration against our party starting future actions, no matter the merit.

Is there ANY critical thought left among us?

[madokie]

23. then so be it

theres all kinds of outcomes but we will never know exactly what it is unless we do something, setting on our hands just ain't getting it. This is not an issue that can be explained away

[bigtree]

37. just do something?

even if it forecasts and proves itself counterproductive?

Anyone who says our party is just 'sitting on their hands' is lying or seriously uninformed.

[madokie]

40. I'm seeing a lot ot things that aren't as they imply they are

I'll not be bruising this brain of mine making a list, because I think most here know what the list is, we've been talking about it ever since I got here.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. Yep

that seems to be the prevailing thought. Just do SOMETHING, no matter how ineffective or potentially harmful.

It's like seeing your house on fire, and all you have is a bucket of gasoline. Well, throw it on the fire! At least you're doing SOMETHING!!!

An impeachment that fails to convict will harm Democrats, and benefit Bush. But no worries... as long as you're doing SOMETHING!!!

sigh.

[paulk]

153. the "just do something" argument

sounds remarkably like the PNAC argument for solving the deadlock in the middle east.

Let's invade Iraq!


That turned out really well....

[spotbird]

33. Without risk there is no reward

Also, continuing as we are carries with it an even greater risk.

[bigtree]

35. that's just silly talk

it sounds good and fires folks up, but it just isn't how our political system works. There is such a thing as a counterproductive action. The congressional record is littered with them.

[madokie]

36. to me silly talk is saying there's not the votes so we can't do something

for crists sakes lets have a trial and find out. I personally think many here would be susprised at the outcome

[bigtree]

48. the system operates on votes

the impeachment process moves forward on votes.

What some want is a dictatorial system where our majority can just hand down their verdicts without any opportunity for the opposition to counter and respond. That's not our system, nor should it be. We are challenged to work within the rules and precepts of our democracy. All of this talk about shortcutting all of the levers of our democratic system and jumping right to impeachment assumes the outcome would be just, no matter how we got there. I'm not convinced that, even if we could somehow take our slim majority and impose our partisan will to initiate an impeachment, that, coming up short (as it looks we would given the balance of power), we'd find some sort of justice in all that. The mere ability of a majority to move something through the process doesn't make it legitimate, or even, proper.

[spotbird]

42. Our political system doesn't work

that's the point. It is desperate need of repair. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

[bigtree]

51. that 'repair' will never come from a shortcutting of the process

to jump (precipitously) to impeachment.

[madokie]

59. I guess thats why we can't have impeachment after all

just too many people with way too many excuses for why we shouldn't. to me that fact is so sad. theres nothing personal in anything I'm saying I'm just voicing what I think needs said

[bigtree]

75. not excuses, sound reasons (which you disagree with)

why are all the unsupported proposals seen as strong, and obstructed efforts which are undertaken seen as weak and capitulating? It's just pure speculation that an impeachment would achieve everything folks pile onto it.

You can't get away with labeling everyone who disagrees with impeachment as somehow complicit. You still haven't proven that impeachment is an effective remedy. A failure in an impeachment effort would likely have the same effect on the administration as a failed legislative effort.

[madokie]

83. but thats why we're here

to agree and to disagree whichever to get the idea out is the important thing. When I'm shown I'm wrong I will always be the first to admit it :-) I am a victim of the art of learning, I always want to learn something new. trust me I've learned a lot here at DU too from you as well as many others.

[bigtree]

88. few will be against impeachment if evidence is assembled in Congress

and presented in a bipartisan way, as much as possible.

But, all I see, so far, is a frustration with the pace of the political process. That's not unusual, or necessarily a fault. If there's actually going to be a successful process of impeachment, it won't be well served by rushing into it with all of the vengeance we've stored for the entirety of Bush's term. I'm less concerned with having the high profile airing of charges an impeachment would provide, than I am with the prospect of a failed effort insulating the administration (or republicans) from any future charges that will certainly come from our party. Let's use every lever of our democracy to get it right.

Why did we stop encouraging those legislative actions we know will fall short, but are necessary in our responsibility to hold the Executive accountable, just to embrace a strategy with the same inherent shortfalls in impeachment?

[spotbird]

137. Why do you think so?

Seriously, has any member of the majority suggested that such a thing would ever happen?

A. Not a one, not even a whispered peep.

How will this additional evidence arrive in congress? You seem to suggest nothing less than a public confession would satisfy your standard of sufficient evidence.

[bigtree]

146. I don't think it serves anything for our legislators to act as if their every action

was a pretext to impeachment . . . it wouldn't even serve an eventual impeachment to spend their time telegraphing their intentions before evidence was gathered and presented.

[spotbird]

150. Not responsive. nt

[spotbird]

62. Precipitously?!?!?!?!???

What else do you need?

[bigtree]

69. charges produced in Congress (or from some outside investigation), not in the media.

do you know of any ready to go?

Conyers has Articles, but he's not put his name behind them to move them forward in this Congress. Where's the evidence coming from? Who's producing it? We can't just move forward with a news clip from Olberman or something.

[madokie]

74. why spend so much effort in defending the notion of impeachment is off the table

lets work to put it on the table where I would hope we all want it to be.

[bigtree]

77. because it usually comes with demagoguery of traditional legislative efforts

and those working to advance them, as your appeal has.

[spotbird]

100. You chose to ignore the abundance of

evidence already on the record, which says that from your perspective there is no proven public corruption worthy of impeachment. We see things differently. I believe congress has a duty to act when confronted with such overwhelming information.

[madokie]

103. they all take an oath to do precisely that

to abide by and to protect

[spotbird]

108. Ok, then they should act accordingly,

and not shirk their sworn duty. What's your point that because they've sworn, that's what they are doing? You've got to be kidding.

[madokie]

116. sorry my point is they took an oath to do that very thing

and so far they have shirked it :hug:

[spotbird]

121. yep. nt

[bigtree]

118. what evidence and where

you're just pulling stuff out of the air.

It's just not true that no one inside of the system cares about these issues as passionately as you do. Congress is acting, just not like you want them to.

[spotbird]

144. Gonzo swore he knew nothing

of the list, a material misrepresentation directly contradicted by Goodling, and others.

Never mind, I’m not going to bother wasting my time with the very long list. You have a faith based belief there is nothing criminal in the record. You clearly haven’t followed the facts. If you were truly interested in the issue you’d have some familiarity with what’s in the record so far, but you don’t, so I’m done here. Read up, and we can take this up later. If you don’t want to bother, then there is no point to this conversation.

[bigtree]

152. It just doesn't ring true there's no one in Congress as concerned with holding Gonzales accountable

as you are.

I'm not going to believe they have solid or indictable evidence that they're 'sitting on' in some sort of cover-up just because they're 'afraid' to confront the administration, as you suggest. Fantasy.

[spotbird]

76. Have you been watching the hearings? nt

[bigtree]

80. When they have 'evidence' they feel they can act on, they will

no one in our party will successfully stand in the way of that effort.

[spotbird]

109. Sure they will.

They have more than enough, they have other motivations for avoiding their duty.

[bigtree]

115. so says spotbird

[Hamlette]

20. do you think prosecutors should bring charges knowing they are not likely to convict?

If you do, your argument holds.

I do not.

You can't convict not merely because this is a political process but because you don't have the evidence.

There is no blue dress.

[madokie]

24. yes I do

theres lots of blues dresses here, many crimes commited, many more than could or would actually be used. just saying

[Hamlette]

65. I've not seen it

and I've read every book on the subject and zillions of articles. I don't see the proof that Bush "knowingly" lied about the war anymore than I see the proof someone "knowingly" outed Plame.

Crimes have elements that must be proven before conviction can occur. I was a public defender and private criminal defense attorney for many years. You have to prove Bush knew what he said was not true.

If you don't think that is going to be hard you missed the point of the 16 words. Remember Tenent took the allegation based on the forgery out of the October speech in Cleveland so what did Bush do? (Or his minions.) They changed to wording to "THE BRITISH" have recently found (or believe) Saddam was trying to get uranium from AFRICA. Two weasel words. It wasn't OUR intel he was using because Tenent wouldn't let him. It was BRITISH intel. And it wasn't Niger it was Africa.

The British intel agency as far as I know have never backed down even in light of the forgeries.

That's just one example. There are zillions. So what you have is a firm belief he is a creep and he lied, backed up by crappy evidence and the knowledge the "jury" will not convict. If you were a prosecutor in a criminal court and you brought this case you could be disbarred.

[spotbird]

25. If they have proof of a crime, absolutely.

Jury nullification happens, but that's a risk a good prosecutor must take. There is no suggestion that charges be concocted, only that the truth be aired.

[madokie]

27. and once the truth is aired all bets are off

on having the 'votes' so to say.

[dogday]

28. If a law has been broken then it is their duty

to prosecute... Why is this so hard for some to grasp... Send the message.. We do not tolerate criminals running our country....

[Hamlette]

60. no, it is NOT their duty to prosecute just because a law has been broken

it is considered an abuse of their discretion to bring a charge unless there is a likelihood of conviction. They can be disbarred for it.

[dogday]

66. WTF

go ahead and break the law as long as there is a chance you won't even be prosecuted because the prosecutors want a slam dunk case... :wtf:

[Hamlette]

67. it's not what the prosecutors want and it is not a slam dunk case that's needed

it is considered, under our legal system, to be an abuse of discretion (office) for a prosecutor to bring a case to trial unless there is a likelihood of conviction.

You don't like it in this case but honestly, if you step back and think about it, you want it that way. Prosecutors should not bring charges unless they think they can convict. It is one of the rules that makes they system work.

[dogday]

73. But the system isn't working, and this Administration

is corrupt as hell, and how much evidence do they need? There is a lot that shows this war was cooked up by this administration for nothing more than profits for blood... If that isn't a reason to convict, or at least to try, then our system needs a thorough shake-up....

[spotbird]

112. This is not a criminal trial,

although it should be.

A prosecutor holding evidence of probable cause that a crime has been committed has no responsibility to withhold a charge due to fear of jury nullification, that's just nonsense.

[spotbird]

124. You are mixed up.

You've confused likelihood of conviction with criminal standards for guilt and evidence. A KKK member may not be convicted of lynching in a racist community with sufficient evidence because the jury believed that such a crime shouldn't be prosecuted. Regardless of the jury pool, the prosecutor should still charge it and bring it to trial if there is probable cause.

[spotbird]

117. Wouldn't that be nice

for criminals if prosecutors ignored crimes because they were afraid they'd lose at trial.

[BuyingThyme]

102. Do you think police should investigate murders?

That's the proper analogy as far as the House is concerned.

No conviction over there. In the House.

[spotbird]

120. The standard is probable cause

There is probable cause here, there is no prosecutor to pursue it, or Member of Congress for that matter.

It would be quite unethical, as the DOJ has abundantly demonstrated, to charge crimes where there is no probable cause, but that would not be the case in an impeachment of Gonzo.

[Hamlette]

170. the standard for impeachment is probable cause

the standard for a prosecutor bring a case is liklihood of conviction. A prosecutor should not bring a case unless they think they can win.

Which brings up another question, is there any evidence? All I've heard is hunches. I will admit I think they are true but what I think doesn't matter.

This is not a political action. The constitution does not say you can impeach a president because you think he is doing a crappy job. It says high crimes and misdemeanors.

Name me one and tell me what you evidence is.

[spotbird]

202. There is no legal standard

which requires a prosecutor should "think they can win." That requirement is what is called, "made up."

If you don't know the crimes by now you haven't been paying attention. It's doubtful that reiteration here would influence your opinion.

[trogdor]

22. First we need to try to get some work done.

Q: Why did the Republicans' majority get cut by more than half in the House of Representatives in 1998?

A: Because they put important business on the back burner while going after Bill Clinton.

Now, I do realize that invading Iraq over a bald-faced lie is a wee bit more serious than getting a BJ from a fat chick and then lying about it, but I can tell you what the outcome would be if the House passed articles of impeachment. A final Senate vote of 48-51 against, or something close to that. That is less support than Clinton's impeachment got in 1999 with a larger Republican majority. Is that worth halting all other business for several months? I think not.

Rather, let's work on making sure the next President is a Democrat, than leaning HARD on the next Attorney General to go after these bastards in 2009. I am perfectly willing to wait that long if it means wall-to-wall coverage on CNN of Dick Cheney fleeing the country (for example).

[madokie]

26. its looking more like each and everyday that there very well may not be another

elected president. If we don't do something we lose, not the * cabal

[MonkeyFunk]

97. No

it only looks that way to some here who are paranoid alarmists. There's no indication whatsoever that there won't be an election next year.

[spotbird]

29. The public understood that

the Clinton impeachment was partisan nonsense, just as the public will see that the systemic corruption of the Department of Justice is a credible cause for an opposition party to pursue. The situations were not comparable. Not to mention, that the Democrats aren't working on valuable legislation instead of pursuing oversight duty.

[rasputin1952]

31. Articles of Impeachment are a part of the process where

the impeached party is charged w/whatever the House decides to charge them with.


But look at the larger picture, the votes are no tin the Senate to remove bush/cheney, and they would both have to go. One of the reasons for this is that Nancy Pelosi would become president if both bush/cheney were removed. If anyone thinks that the majority of R's in the Senate would allow that to happen...let's just say it's ain't gonna happen.

This is why I say that all such acts are acts of futility. I would be fine to embarrass these assholes, as that is all this would do, but they are embarrassing themselves all the time, so what is the point?

Here is an option though, albeit one that may not work, but it has a better chance than the bush/cheney impeachmeny....impeach cheney. There are a ton of reasons this can be done., all legit and some criminal in intent, that came from the VP's office. At the same time, it would revert the status of VP to it's original intent., one of the greatest complaints about Clinton was the whole "co-president" thing w/him and Hillary....at least those two had intellects, the cursed meld between bush/cheney is 2 idiots dancing in the dark, naked and destroying this very nation while they do a little two-step.

[spotbird]

32. We're talking about the impeachment of Gonzales

Bush/Cheney should also be impeached, but that's another issue entirely.

[madokie]

38. heck, I thought we were talking about the whole criminal cabal

every last one of them

[rasputin1952]

41. My bad...but I really took it as the whole current "regime"...

:blush:

Getting rid of Gonzo would be easy, if the Art. of Imp. were drawn up and served. Even the Senate R's despise this little piece of crap...and it would send shock-waves through bush/cheney...not to mention a devastating deathblow to whomever was nominated after Gonzo was removed from office, (whether AG/SCJ/EPA, whomever...:D )

[madokie]

45. Yep I guess the proper thing to do is start with gonZaLAss

sharpen the tools more of less.

[rasputin1952]

71. Taking out Gonzo would terrify the WH...They wouldn't show it,

but the attacks they could see coming would have them all crapping their pants. Biggest problem there is, is that they haven't been called on anything, and Lord knows, they could be called on just about everything.

[madokie]

171. and finally they are being called on

and they are shitting their collective pants as I type. thats another reason we must keep the pressure on. That was a big part of the motivation for going after the Big Dog all those years, to try to keep him preoccupied so as to limit the damage to their cause he was able to do. they didn't give two shits for whitewater or the 'bj' they were after tying hands and killing time until they figure out a way to get their sorry asses back in the whitehouse, after all for the most part this crew have been with us a long long time, all the way back and before nixon. They are a sinister bunch

[rasputin1952]

189. Precisely...the evil that these people possess is far beyond

our comprehension. Lying, stealing, rule by fear means nothing to these bastards...this is not the GOP thatmy mother nad her generation knew...these people are hell bent on destroying democracy and installing a system that we fought against in 1775-81...they want royalty, and they are on the verge of getting it...:grr:

[madokie]

34. to me the point is to stop this train wreck called bush*/cheney*

I couldn't make it reading any further in your reply, sorry

[spotbird]

46. My bad

I'm fixated on the Democratic humiliation known as the "no confidence" vote scheduled for today, so I assumed that's what you were referring to.

[madokie]

49. that works just fine with me

;-)

[rasputin1952]

53. There are other ways to derail these goomers....but it takes

a spine and fortitude.

The R's have to sign on to some legislation that benefits the infrastructure of this nation, thereby aiding American citizens. bush will veto it, cost/not war related/whatever...Congess then NEEDS to override the veto, overwhelmingly and en masse.

There would be a grand sigh of relief throughout tis nation, simply because it would be a sign of leadership. That one override has enormous implications for the direction this nation would take....but it takes guts, and that is something sorely lacking...:(

[Red1]

44. The Dems Are Just As Guilty as Shrub, That Why

[madokie]

47. I have to agree with that

too much to start doing serious investigation for them all.

[Hissyspit]

50. You are thinking like Rep. Major Owens who posted almost the exact same thing at HuffPo today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1087738

[dave123williams]

52. Not having the votes didn't stop the GOP from draggin Bubba through the mud.

[bigtree]

54. and that was a travesty

which garnered almost universal scorn as it revealed its ineffectiveness in stopping Clinton from doing ANYTHING.

[madokie]

56. it wasn't so much intended to stop Clinton

as it was to set the stage for what happened later. remember returning honor and intergrity to the whitehouse, I do.

[spotbird]

58. THIS IS DIFFERENT!!!!

The impeachment of Clinton was a purely political show, there was no substantive underlying crime. Here there is an ongoing criminal enterprise which reaches to the very core of the democracy, how can any rational person analogize the two situations?

[madokie]

63. I think they can't

this cannot be rationalized in any way shape or form. Impeachment must happen and we must not stop until it does. I want better for my children and grandchildren's future than what is, as it stands now, whats its going to be like for them. I will not walk away from this fight as I can see neither will you, thanks for that.

[bigtree]

68. folks are talking about initiating the process without a clear path to conviction

that's how.

All of the talk about a 'criminal enterprise' ignores the ability of these folks to cover-up and hide their roles in it all. It's not like there's some outside indictment ready to go on our signal. If we can find charges and initiate them outside of our own partisan circle, they might have a chance to catch fire, but all of this impeachment talk assumes the opposition would just fold. Are folks really that naive?

[spotbird]

79. First, that is the reason for the hearings

I'm talking Gonzales here-

Second, there would be an investigation followed by a trial.

[bigtree]

81. we don't need to initiate impeachment proceedings to have hearings

and gather evidence

[madokie]

85. isn't that what is happening now

at some point we have to move forward, after all we can't just investigate only. theres plenty of reasons to believe this illegal criminal cabal are deserving of impeachment and removal from office to be shortly afterwards shipped of the the Netherlands to give them a chance to have their say, their day in court for many serious international crimes. methinks

[spotbird]

90. This is ridiculous,

the reason the Democrats aren't going forward, speaking about Gonzo, has nothing to do with an absence of evidence.

[madokie]

95. sure it is

in this exchange I've realized that gonzo must go first and I agree with that.

[bigtree]

98. who says they aren't going forward?

it does have everything to do with not going forward with an impeachment, despite the slam dunk case folks think they can glean from the media. That effort could take some time. Indictments usually do.

[madokie]

101. I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed

[bigtree]

93. oh yeah, it's happening, despite the 'off the table' remarks

I find it hard to believe that the leadership, or any other substantial number of Democrats will stand in the way of clear evidence leading to a conviction. They should, though, demand an independent prosecutor from Justice to take away any partisan twinge from the charges. I really expect that to happen in some form with all of our lifelong Democrats working so hard to put it all together.

[spotbird]

106. Well that's what's happening,

believe your lying eyes.

[bigtree]

119. your word?

not enough.

[spotbird]

129. You obviously did not watch the hearings

I don't suggest they take my word for it, that would be ridiculous, why would you suggest I said anything of the sort?

They should just the sworn testimony. It is more than enough, you haven't followed it or you'd know that.

[bigtree]

154. yup

I'm just oblivious to it all. That's it.

you got me. :eyes:

[spotbird]

89. Have you watched any of the proceedings so far?

The testimony supports charges of perjury and abuse of power, at very least. THAT IS EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES!!!!!!!!!!!! If nothing else came in, which undoubtedly it would, there is enough already.

[bigtree]

96. I agree, from the outside

but it's a very different thing to initiate charges from a position of authority. They'd better have their swords polished before they proceed; not like the summary judgment some want here.

[spotbird]

105. No, not summary judgment

impeachment and trial, quite different. Gonzo would have a biased judge as well as a rigged jury, but there would be testimony and proof.

[bigtree]

122. Congress would set the amount of evidence admitted, number of witnesses, etc.

The more partisan the process is the more the opposition will be able to deflect because of that partisanship. A 'biased judge as well as a rigged jury" would make any 'testimony and proof' tainted and moot. It makes no sense at all to talk about adhering to their responsibility to 'uphold the law' and then abandon all of that to a dubious, partisan proceeding tainted by a lack of due process.

[spotbird]

132. You've convinced me

The Republicans might fight back so the Democrats should tolerate any sort of public corruption. We wouldn't want to seem mean, after all.

[bigtree]

156. of course, that's not what I said at all.

Under your prescription, why do we even need a hearing? Let's just convict using whatever it takes. That should inspire confidence in the integrity of our political and legal system.

[madokie]

173. I never got the gist to be that

maybe I'm missing something though. articles of impeachment then the trial is how it works I think

[dave123williams]

203. Are you?

All you need to impeach is a simple majority in the House. That's it.

We have that.

[mmonk]

72. You're starting to get it. The only reason there is no

impeachment is that it is opposed by democrats since democrats are the only ones right now that can stop it.

[ComerPerro]

86. you will never convict. Need 67 in the Senate

[spotbird]

94. It's possible

if there is a sober, concentrated trial, not exploitative. Even if it failed, the would no longer be a way to deny the corruption of DOJ.

[madokie]

99. theres so many reasons to impeach all of them

and only one to not too, don't have the votes

[ComerPerro]

140. you could have all the evidence in the world. No way you'll swing 15 Repigs to vote to convict

[spotbird]

147. That is not an excuse to do nothing. nt

[ComerPerro]

149. oh, I agree. Its much better to waste time and accomplish nothing while wasting money

especially before an election.

Real issues? Hell, who has time for that! We gotta carry out an impeachment that will go nowhere!

[spotbird]

155. This is a real issue, it is naive to believe otherwise.

And it's one hell of a lot more important than the immigration bill that those nuts cooked up.

You do understand that the legacy of this corruption is the politicization of the DOJ which will last at least a generation? If that's not a fucking issue, there are no issues.

[ComerPerro]

161. you apparently don't understand how campaigns are run, and how the media works in this country

[spotbird]

162. Silly me! nt

[Independent_Liberal]

196. It's not as far fetched as you might think.

Remember the Watergate hearings and investigations? Many Republicans supported Nixon for a long time. Once the evidence came out of the investigations, the public outcry got so loud, nobody could ignore it. Eventually the Republicans went and forced Nixon to resign.

[dogday]

87. Q. What is most important to any process of presidential impeachment?

A. What is essential is that the process proceed in a manner that promotes public confidence in it for the good of the nation, consistent with the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution.


http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

[madokie]

92. pretty much says it all, huh

we must attemp to impeach these guys whether we get a conviction or not. we have to or we've lost way more than what we've lost up to this crew up to this point

[Individualist]

130. One has to wonder

why some are so vehemently arguing against it.

[madokie]

133. as the Vietnamese would say many years ago, I no bic

but that is what I wanted to do. To air this out and get some feel for it. My opinion is still we need to impeach the whole lot of them now. I haven't read anything to make me change that yet.

[onenote]

123. and an impeachment process that is not bipartisan will not promote public confidence

Consider the words of Russ Feingold from Feb 1999:

"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

Or the words of Paul Wellstone, also from Feb 1999:

"Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."


My point is merely that unless and until bi-partisan support for impeachment emerges, possibly as a result of investigatory and oversight hearings, the commencement of the impeachment process would be ill-advised.

[bigtree]

126. eom

[madokie]

135. please remember it's nothing personal

we come to share

[bigtree]

138. hey, I make no apologies for my passionate defense of my party

and my impressions of our system of government

[madokie]

141. thats cool

[madokie]

127. This is serious

whats been happening in our country in the last 6 plus years that needs to be dealth with now. and if in another few years the same thing happens we need to do the same thing again. impeach them

[mmonk]

128. There is nothing in the constitution that says that.

I'm tired of excuses and of blind followers of party leadership members. Those that will not address constitutional crimes by default support those crimes.

[madokie]

139. thats the way I see it too

[spotbird]

134. The public doesn't know the nature of

the crimes, but there is not support for Gonzales to the extent there is public awareness. As far as I know there is no public outcry against impeachment of Gonzo as there was with the trumped up charges against Clinton. The difference is the persecution of Clinton truly was a witch hunt, the public could see that. Now there is a generalized awakening that the Bush cronies are filthy, the situations are IN NO WAY analogous.

[dogday]

136. With 70% of the population not supporting this administration

and it's policies, I would say public confidence would be restored... What the Politicians want, and what the People want, I would argue are two separate things..

[Gregorian]

131. We don't let criminals walk because we think the jury won't convict.

So it follows that what some have said about Democrats not wanting to impeach, must be true.

I fear our troubles ahead are far greater in the event we continue down this road of the last few years.

There a flaw in the impeachment process, namely that it only works under specific conditions, needed or not needed.

I am going back toward demanding impeachment, regardless of the outcome.

I feel hopeless. They're listening, and doing nothing.

[bigtree]

142. you're pissed because you say they're 'doing nothing'

but you say you're unconcerned that the outcome of an impeachment may not produce a conviction.

Why 'demand' something that you admit is a dubious proposition?

[madokie]

143. I say setting the precedence

that we won't blindly allow shit to happen, for the lack of a better word at the moment

[bigtree]

160. the 'precedence' obtained from a partisan, dubious impeachment

may well be a reluctance of legislators and the public to get behind future impeachments, no matter the merit.

[spotbird]

148. because doing nothing is so much worse. nt

[bigtree]

157. sure, it would be worse

if, in fact, they were actually 'doing nothing'

[Gregorian]

183. Conviction or not, I believe the PROCESS will be productive.

I mean it may be revealing. It may show that we aren't just letting this stuff happen without consequences. And much more.

[madokie]

184. for the precedence it would set we must impeach them

whether we get a conviction or not, we at least have to try


splchk

[bigtree]

191. It may reveal nothing more than a weak hand if they fold on the target

because of a political gridlock over a conviction. A criminal prosecution, on the other hand, initiated much like we did with Fitzgerald, could ensure justice and still provide for an impeachment untainted by the tinge of a partisan prosecution initiated only in Congress. And, those types of prosecutions take time, from Grand Juries we can't see to indictments we can't easily predict. An impeachment might just be a welcome development for a target who knows they are facing an advancing indictment. They might think it better for them to afford themselves of the political cushion of an impeachment with their party defending them than to be out in the cold with an independent indictment.

Do you really think that there aren't folks in Congress who are just dying to have a case for impeachment (or an indictment) sealed to deliver to the administration?

[mmonk]

145. Exactly. It hits directly at the flaws in the political excuses

against impeachment. No one would accept excuses if their house was being broken into and they told the police and the police replied, "Well since your lawyer and the criminal's lawyer might settle out of court or the charges will probably be reduced or we're not sure of conviction, we aren't going to charge anyone or pursue it."

[madokie]

151. I still have not read a real legitimate reason why we don't or can't impeach

these criminals, high crimes and misdemeanors has it all covered if one was to ask me.

[spotbird]

159. Perjury, obstruction of justice,

Hatch Act violations, and abuse of power aren't enough of an issue to concern the congress. They need to spend their time on unworkable, convoluted legislation that has no hope of improvement of the Nation, but will pander to the most shallow portion of their political base. The issue is priorities.

[madokie]

163. the list is so long as to bruise my little brain just thinking about it

I say they need to whatever they do with articles of impeachment in the house and then get on with the trial in the senate, time is wasting. As long as this criminal crew in in the wh no matter what legislation is passed it will make no difference to them, they simply don't follow the law, that in itself is enough for me.

[spotbird]

165. Amen brother!

[Individualist]

167. Rep. Owens is right: "Our refusal to use this strategy is a reckless blunder of omission."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1087738

[madokie]

168. I agree whole heartedly

I want to keep our Country as it was designed to be not how bushco* wants it to be. bushco* = neoCONS

[LSK]

192. watch some CSPAN2, you will not find 17 repukes to vote with us

If you have watched CSPAN2 for the past 6 or 7 years and see the Repuke Senators in action, you wouldnt be asking this.

[Independent_Liberal]

197. Look, I know logic would tell you, "No, they wouldn't," but...

...appearances can be deceiving. Read my post above. Nobody ever thought anything would come of the Watergate hearings. At that time impeachment and conviction seemed impossible. Nobody ever thought Nixon would resign. But then as the evidence started coming out, the public rage is ultimately what turned things around. Never say never.