Impeachment Without A Conviction? Hell Yes!

[kpete]

It is time to impeach no matter what the outcome may be.

Impeachment will HELP kill the perception that the Dems are to weak to 'defend the country.'

There will NOT be a backlash for a non-political fact based investigation. (of course the rabid 28% will foam at the mouth, but that is a permanent state, it's time to judiciously ignore them while responding to their smears effectively) ANY backlash will be insignificant compared to what is at stake. See the Clinton backlash numbers above.

I also argue that with the war still on, and the additional corruption being exposed through investigations...AND the fact that the GOP hates their candidates, any backlash in 2008 will be further diminished in significance. The Repubs are toast...UNLESS we do nothing, which is what we are perceived to be doing...and why the poll numbers are down.

And finally... pragmatically for investigative purposes, politically, to be perceived as effective, and morally and legally to restore and enforce the rule of law, Impeachment is the right thing to do....whether we have the votes to convict or not.

Obviously however, I still feel that once the EFFECTIVE investigations are completed, there WILL be enough (R) Senators who will vote to disassociate with Bush to save their own ass.

lots more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/16/172422/311

[Gregorian]

1. Impeachment is a wrench in their gears.

For no other reason, we should impeach just to slow down their damage.

[kpete]

2. more

The Republicans are stonewalling using executive privilege as an excuse. They know the current investigations have no teeth. I believe Condi Rice is ignoring a subpoena right now, as a matter of fact. Abu Gonzales is Stonewalling. Cheney has been Stonewalling on the Energy Meetings for years. It goes on and on.....and WILL go on until The Democrats stop them from Stonewalling.


IMPEACHMENT IS THE HAMMER TO KNOCK THE STONEWALL DOWN.

Under Impeachment proceedings, executive privilege is not allowed, I believe that was decided on Nixon.

A subpoena under Impeachment proceedings carries more weight. Both with the Voters....and with the media.

The Media will actually COVER the story.....Impeachment is sexy. Investigations are already boring. If the media have a sexy Impeachment to sink their teeth into, they might even investigate and report stuff!!!

[blayne]

49. I agree

I can't see any of these investigations by all of the different committees going anywhere. I was optimistic at first, but every bit of optimism is met with another successful stonewalling effort or more outright lying. There needs to be a new approach, and if we get rid of executive privilege by way of impeachment, maybe we can get somewhere.

[warren pease]

50. Exactly! That's my main reason for getting after these bastards NOW...

These are my top three reasons for going after them now, and screw the votes to convict:


- Impeachment proceedings are a great form of damage control and will keep these swine focused on self-preservation rather than imperialism. It keeps them busy with legal matters when they would otherwise be spending their time as they usually do: figuring out new and ever-more damaging ways to screw up the country and the rest of the planet. I'd rather see these mass murders sweating over the latest evidence disclosure all night with their $4,000 a day lawyers on the edge of panic, than think of them giggling over the latest propaganda coup, Cheney's latest dividend check from Halliburton, the latest exploitative contract for Iraqi oil signed and ready for their close friends in the petrochemical industry, the latest software from the fine engineers at Diebold, which virtually guarantees that a new undetectable, untraceable, unfixable vote-flipping "bug" will ship in time for the 2008 elections. And so many countries to invade, so little time. There's a whole axis of evil out there just waiting to give up its natural resources. Nuking Iran might be fun.

- There must be accountability for running a pure rogue state, starting with grand theft election (two counts); shoving the Constitution through the shredder; invading a sovereign nation on phony intel; permitting the single worst act of terrorism on their watch, and with -- best evidence suggests -- their complicity; torturing disposable little brown people in off-shore hell-holes using taxpayer-funded sadists; outing a covert CIA operative who was actually working on tracking WMDs in real terrorist networks (unlike the bullshit they pawned off about Saddam); putting cronies in key positions, where many survived long enough to do serious damage ala "Great job, Brownie" and his inspired leadership during the Katrina disaster; willful environmental destruction by a) giving tax breaks to Hummer buyers, b) refusing to sign any international treaty or protocol that would "compromise" the American lifestyle by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, c) screwing up the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, eliminating nearly all EPA oversight and enforcement, and d) gagging NOAA's leading climatologists lest they speak of the human causes of global climate change. And that's just a small, random sample of their high crimes and treasonous policies.

Their idiotic incompetence goes back even further, to when they were taking delivery on several hundred pieces of a P-3 Orion they had been using to run surveillance ops on China, even back to that day in the Pacific when they let one of their obscenely rich "contributors" take the wheel on a nuclear submarine, surfacing directly under a Japanese fishing boat and killing the first of perhaps a million disposable brown people.

- There must be precedent set through the impeachment of this truly awful pack of thieves and traitors, lest future megalomaniacs get the idea that they can get away with this shit, too. And that message is already out there load and clear to any power-mad fascist (an oxymoron?) with money, an organization and the desire to rule by truncheon and torture -- or by exportation to the detention camps of the American gulag for a little political re-education.


Just imagine a slick version of Georgie, with a more telegenic, less obviously vile VP at his side. David Duke and some equally fascist henchman, both of whom look mild and unthreatening in expensive suits. That's what's next unless the line of succession is broken right now, and unless Democrats finally stand up and say: "Enough! This will not continue, not with our tacit support, a moment longer. Bipartisanship just went out of fashion and this century's first war on fascism just began."

Now... that's how I know I'm still capable of self-delusion. If a ranking democrat -- Pelosi or a few others -- actually said something like that, and then acted on it, there might possibly be a chance to get this country back. However, given the sorry cast of cowards and enablers who pollute the left side of the aisle, I don't really see anything like that happening. Kucinich's articles won't get out of committee; impeachment will remain "off the table;" the accommodators will continue to enable administration policy; the white house will continue to shred and strew subpoenas like confetti, with no consequences; and BushCo will either seize full federal power to prevent its lawful exit in 2009, or just retire to some tropical paradise with more money than god and no presence of a conscience to trouble them about the blood soaking their hands.


Impeachment now; conviction and consequences may take a bit longer.


wp

[Gregorian]

54. Break the line of succession.

That is precisely what has been on my mind. No Jeb Bush in the White House. No more no-bid contracts. Accountability.

I also don't expect much from the Dems in Congress. I would so love to be surprised. There are a few who are really pulling for us, though.

[elocs]

3. No, no, no. There will be no impeachment unless there is a chance of conviction.

Take it to the bank. I did not say there would be no impeachment, just none without the chance of conviction and as it stands now there is absolutely no chance. Wish, hope, howl, rant and rave all you want, there must be at least a chance of conviction.
Congress may not have done much without a veto over riding majority, but if it spends most of the rest of its time on impeachment then independent, swing voting Americans will look on it as a political ploy. Not all of them, but enough of them.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Al Franken suggested impeaching him in early January 2009,

with the new Senate (and him in it!) "just because we can"!

Future history books deserve no less.

[elocs]

8. Al has a good sense of humor. I hope he becomes Wisconsin's 3rd senator

just as Paul Wellstone was considered to be.

[Connonym]

41. Wisconsin's 3rd Senator lol

Two fabulous Senators and Herb Kohl. That would be awesome.

[BrklynLiberal]

40. I would l ike to see the Dems do it, just to prove they can...Conviction or not!!!

That fact that some might see it a political ploy does not bother me at all. EVERYTHING the Repukes do is a political ploy!!!!
At least the impeachment would be a ploy with a purpose, and at the very least would shine a light on the BushCo machinations.

[Vincardog]

11. How many independent, swing voting Americans do you think there are?

I say maybe 1% Face it if they have now decided by now an IMPEACHMENT hearing may just be the only thing left to open their eyes.

[Usrename]

25. Yes, exactly.

The fictitious middle that might get offended. Please. Supposedly they believe that these criminals are above the law.

I think not. It's total hooey, if you ask me.

They would absolutely be convicted if charges were brought. No one should even doubt it. The evidence is overwhelming.

[Vincardog]

84. You got that right. We have to make them face the facts.

[onenote]

35. and can you offer any support for your contention that there is no "middle"

[Vincardog]

53. No one can prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you sir. The vast undecided independent

swing vote was your contention.
Didn't you read YOUR post?
MIDDLE is such a vague term, one thing I know is that with 70% of the country opposed to the radical REICH wing's wars of aggression;
and 67% of the country believing we are heading in the wrong direction; the "middle" is on my side.

[onenote]

76. that depends on what "your" side is

Yes, a large majority thinks the war is a mistake and we should get out. But it gets a bit more complicated when you ask how we should get out. And yes a majority thinks were heading in the wrong direction. But the burden is on you, not me, to show that all, or even most of them think the right direction is what you think the right direction is.

The fact that 2/3 of the people don't like the way things are going doesn't tell you anything about what they specifically want other than they don't want things to stay the same.

Finally, for those that claim that there is no middle, no independents, and that there is a silent progressive majority, I ask the following: why did Ned Lamont only get 40 percent of the vote? (and believe me, I wanted Lamont to win as much as anyone).

[Vincardog]

83. AS to Ned do ya think it had anything to do with the DINO DLC support he received?

What kind of vote tabulating equipment do they use in Conn.?

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Of course meaningless timetables with no teeth was serious? A "no confidence" vote

that means nothing on Gonzales is a great use of time?

Have you seen congressional approval ratings lately? They are worse than 6 months ago.

So the stratedgy of not impeaching is worse that than impeaching without the votes for a conviction apparently.

I can't understand why Dem party stratigists assume independants and swing voters are a bunch of dumb asses who wouldn't appreciate anything that puts the breaks on this administration.

I think the dumb asses are the Dem stratigists, and that seems to have proven itself out repeatedly.

[burythehatchet]

66. wronger words have never been typed. you ought to look into a career at the DLC

How hard is it to understand that the majority (if a vast majority) of people want it to happen. Period. End of story. What you described above is called cowardice, it is the middle way, the way of no vision. The way of "let's just get into power. The problem is that people who get into power with the motivation of let's just get into power are the people who will make our lives worse.

:rant:

[elocs]

68. No, cowardice is name-calling, using buzz words to discredit somebody's opinion.

But then your opinion is the only right one, the only one that matters. You know nothing about me, yet you can, on the basis of one post, label me a coward. Pathetic. Sorry (not really), you have earned an X. You're not worth my time.

[burythehatchet]

70. I'm sorry

I never meant to impugn you as an individual. I just am starting to feel strongly that the congress must stop these criminals now. Impeachment is the only honorable thing to do. Peace.

[babylonsister]

4. I could get behind that, just so the history books might reflect what an

absolutely horrid little man he really is/was.

[bigtree]

27. if the effort is truly one without a chance in hell of a conviction

'history' will also record the failure, and future Congress' will likely be loath to take that course again, creating a premise surrounding whatever charges are brought that not even an impeachment could reign them in on that subject or issue.

The results of such an effort? No conviction? The target effectively absolved by the political cover of the political proceeding? The largest distraction imaginable from other crimes and concerns which don't fall anywhere near the subject of the inquiry?

No thanks. If an impeachment is to occur, it needs to be preceded by an outside criminal prosecution if it is to be seen a more than a partisan attack; and it should involve more substance and evidence than is already known if it's going to be more than just an extension of the same political back and forth that's happening now.

If we go into a process admitting that a conviction is not necessary, it will be seen as nothing more than a political vendetta and it will be just another distraction from the issues and concerns our legislators are trying to manage right now as they exercise the many other levers of accountability available to them that don't rise to the extraordinary level of an impeachment. Frankly, I don't know why advocates aren't being held accountable for suggesting we abandon all of those to focus entirely on the one dubious remedy.

There has to be some goal other than just exercising the option because it's there. Questions should be asked and answered before proceeding, including the obvious one that's rejected here, whether it's likely to result in a conviction.

For instance, would the impeachment bring an end to the occupation, or will it serve as a distraction from that effort?

Will there be adequate time and resources afforded the myriad of other responsibilities our majority has to hold the administration accountable and uphold the laws and regulations already on the books which aren't covered by the article of charges?

Will the impeachment be seen as some partisan effort, undertaken to accomplish what the present balance of power prevented our majority from achieving legislatively?

Are there other, more effective ways to prosecute the crimes? Certainly the political proceeding will be a weak substitute for an outside prosecution which has consequences beyond simple removal from office. To just blunder forward without a clear notion of the outcome seems to me the height of folly. Most of the debate centers on some nebulous collection of charges which can't all be included in an impeachment. Why wouldn't we want to have a reasonably solid case before jumping in? Why should we suppose that there are no consequences to our party in an impeachment?

Right now, without knowing what the charges would be, and no clear notion of the possibility of success, advocating an impeachment for impeachment's sake is reckless and misleading. I'm not buying it until these questions are addressed, and I don't think folks should be promoting such an extreme political remedy without giving us some idea what the outcome and effect would be.

[madokie]

28. its beyond me that you just know for a fact there can/will be no conviction

with all due respect I think this type thinking is why we can't have impeachment. Impeachment is the right thing to do, period no if and or buts to it. IMHO

[bigtree]

29. the premise of the OP is to impeach 'no matter what the outcome may be'

What charges will be included in the impeachment? Do we just present a blank set of articles? NONE of the appeals to move to impeachment indicate what specific set of articles that we should support. How in the heck can anyone make a judgment on an impeachment process without knowing what the charges will be?
It's well and fine to have a wish list, but we shouldn't just sign on to an impeachment because it's the cool, popular thing to do. I want to know what we're getting our party into BEFORE we start down that road. And, we really won't know any of that until someone actually steps forward with a set of charges.

Why should ANYONE sign on to such a dubious strategy?

[madokie]

30. Just what do you propose we do

set on our asses while bushco* ruins our democracy. I don't buy setting and doing nothing

[bigtree]

32. I've got eyes and ears

I don't see our Democratic majority 'sitting still and doing nothing' at all. That's the premise that accompanies all of these generic impeachment appeals. What purpose is there in disavowing all of the work that is going on in oversight committees and with legislation crafted and presented? If the goal is to shortcut the legislative process then there should be some reasonable expectation that that course will ensure success. Otherwise, we should stick to the hard work of reconciling our differences and working together to advance legislation addressing our concerns; not just throw it all into some omnibus set of charges and expect the gravity of an impeachment to sort it all out.

I believe that an impeachment could very well occur and be successful, but not one which isn't based on charges on which we have a reasonable expectation of a conviction.

It's wrong for folks to call for some generic, nebulous impeachment proceeding and knock down anyone who questions the efficacy of the process. I expect there to be accountability from the accusers as well as from the accused. Right now, proponents are asking us to buy a pig in a poke, and I'm just not convinced there's something there to get behind and support . . . yet.

I think folks are frustrated with the normal legislative process because our majority is a few votes short of passing anything unassailable. That frustration isn't going to be well served, though, by an impeachment process which takes the air out of all of the other levers of accountability which our Democrats are busy exercising. Those oversight functions will be obscured and buried by an impeachment.

Further, the process, while certainly a legal one, is also a political proceeding which will elicit more than the normal amount of partisanship. I don't think an impeachment based on arguments we are already deadlocked on is an effective use of the extraordinary remedy. If the process is to be successful, it will have to involve more than just the same back and forth we're experiencing now. We shouldn't expect a different outcome or resolution of issues just because they are debated in an impeachment.

[madokie]

33. what frustrates me is saying we shouldn't because we don't have the votes

How in the hell can we know we don't have the votes if we don't at least try. no matter the amount of lipstick a pig is still a pig. :eyes:

[bigtree]

34. well, the votes are part of it - the most important part, in my view

the conviction, the success of the venture.

Again, how can we judge the worth of a proceeding without knowing the particulars? I'm all for an impeachment which is based on a supportable set of charges because that is what will serve to transform the process into something more than a partisan mudfest. I prefer that those charges be associated with an initial, outside prosecution BEFORE Congress decides to step in and muck it up with their politics.

There's a difference, in my mind, between a regular prosecution and an impeachment where evidence, witnesses, and a host of other functions of a successful prosecution are subject to votes in a committee. If there are crimes which are obvious and apparent, then why not call for an outside prosecutor NOW? What is the value in waiting for an impeachment and allowing politicians to weigh in and diffuse the concerns into the same partisan debate that's occurring right now? If we have clear evidence of a crime (which I think is essential in any proceeding) then we should be pressing for a criminal prosecution with real consequences beyond firing.

But, right now, all the proponents are offering us is a pig in a poke; a pie-in-the-sky panacea.

[madokie]

36. I think we are totally on different pages

I see your opinions as part of the problem not the solution. I go now to tend to the garden, no progress to be made here :hi:

[bigtree]

37. this is the problem madokie: folks getting ragged on for having reservations

It's not like there isn't already oodles of support for the generic notion of impeachment. As I've repeatedly stated, I'm also not opposed to impeachment, under the right circumstances. It's not cowardice, pandering, ignorance, or any other bullshit that flies in the face of dissent from DU orthodoxy around here which compels me to expect the right kind of process instead of just any old impeachment for impeachment's sake. I have specific questions which I think deserve some answers, and not just responding as if the questions themselves were as pernicious as the abuses we all would like to see addressed. It would also be helpful if there were some overall goals discussed here and to ask ourselves whether those goals (like an Iraq withdrawal) will be furthered or hindered by a contemplated action.

But, you think my OPINION is the problem. What a complete crock. I don't believe that the majority in our party think that expressing and holding differing OPINIONS on how best to hold the administration accountable stands in the way of their progress, or there would be no majority at all. It's incredible to me that some still believe that there should be just one set of solutions to Bush's abuse of power acceptable to debate.

The discussion here over impeachment (and a host of other concerns) has become very intolerant of dissenting views. But you, or anyone else here, won't come to an effective resolution of these concerns by just cobbling together everyone in our party who agrees with you and expecting that amount of support to carry you to success.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. Have you read HR333? It contains specific charges. Go read it if you haven't already.

[bigtree]

57. I've got my own set of charges, but there haven't been any presented

in an official start to some impeachment. It's like Conyers' effort. He has a whole set of articles he's sitting on, and he supports the calls for impeachment, but he won't put his name behind any particular effort. It's one thing to call for a generic, or even a specific course, and another to consider something which is actually going forward. I intend to judge any process on its own merits, rather than just start pushing for a process now which I may not think is viable in the end when it's all laid out. right now, we're being asked to support a pig in a poke; a set of charges yet unseen.

And this OP suggests we should support ANY charges just for the sake of going through the process and vibing off of the publicity. I'm just not convinced, right now, that it's the right choice to just jump into an impeachment without some sense that the end game is going to be successful. I'm just not convinced taking all of the air out of the other functions of our majority are worth the effort this late in this administration.

I do, however, plan to put whatever I can behind an impeachment, when and if it is initiated. I don't intend to be some drag on the process. But, I do intend to put my cautions in front of these generic calls for going forward which discount the disruption all of the other functions of accountability our majority is responsible for which I think would occur in the effort. I just think the end should bring us to a point where we accomplish something more than just embarrassing the administration. I just don't see the same benefit in starting the process without some reasonable chance of conviction as the OP. The entire premise is that the OP (and others) is frustrated by the limits of the levers of accountability our majority is exercising right now, and that we should jump past all of that and move to an impeachment. I'm frustrated as well, but I'm not ready to abandon the normal legislative process for some nebulous push to impeach someone.

When we get a set of charges which someone in Congress is willing to put their name behind and push for a committee vote then we can judge the efficacy of all that. Until then, there's just too much faith in an unseen, unknown impeachment which most folks intend to encompass ALL of the malfeasance in this administration. I think that's completely unrealistic and not going to happen. If we do get to an impeachment it will, more than likely be for a specific set of charges geared toward a specific policy and a specific target. We're not going to be able, as many folks are posturing, to adjudicate every shortcoming and abuse we've been protesting. It will have to be for a specific set of charges, and the debate will center on those, pass or fail.

Now HR333 is a good start. I think it has a handful of co-sponsors. But, I also can see the ultimate debate over those charges, in an impeachment, breaking down into the same partisan camps that haven't been able to reconcile their disagreements on the administration's complicity and lies on Iraq so far. Why would we expect any different result from the same collection of legislators? Why would we expect the back and forth between these politicians to track any differently than it has already?If we are to succeed, we will need to bring something more to the table than the same debate we've been having for years with no political resolution. Given the balance of power, the end result of a Kucinich prosecution based on the (meritorious) articles in HR333 is more than predictable. If they bring it, if it rises to a serious level of consideration, I'll go along for the dance, but I don't expect to get lucky when we take the muther home.

[immoderate]

47. What madokie is suggesting is that the system might actually work.

But I'm speaking for myself. There may be a point, beyond which Republicans have to consider something other than the party line. Confronted with the actual evidence, laid out in an impeachment hearing, it just may be too difficult for Republicans to deny reality. Historic records will show their malfeasance, and there could be political consequences.

Risks? There are some. What's the downside? Backlash? Sure Clinton benefited, but White House and Congress still went to Republicans. I think the evidence is overwhelming, and the charges are damning. Why worry about future impeachments when we need it now? Will there be worse than Bush? There more likely will if we don't impeach this bastard now!

--IMM

[bigtree]

60. I want to know how any process will affect the goals we have set out

Most importantly, how will an impeachment effort affect a withdrawal from Iraq?

I think it is responsible and correct to make those judgments before we jump in with both feet. We *determine what our priorities should be all of the time.

As Rep. Conyers says, ""The goal is whether to impeach or follow up on the defects and disabilities of an administration" that has shut out Congress."

As of today, Conyers, a 'supporter' of impeachment, hasn't put his name behind any specific proposal. That's understandable, given the time left in this administration and the balance of power.

edit:*

[immoderate]

67. A good question. Legislation is blocked by the Senate...

but impeachment isn't. :)

--IMM

[bigtree]

69. also,

there is , at least, a hint of some crack in Bush's republican wall of support on Iraq. I want to know how the initiation of an impeachment process will affect any chance of reconciliation and a compromise which *would direct Bush to end the occupation and begin to bring the troops home. Impeachment will be polarizing if the charges are indistinguishable from the debate which is already bogged down on partisan lines. I think the legislative process deserves more than an afterthought or an abandonment just because we've encountered resistance. I think we should decide what our legislative goals are (and otherwise) and decide if a specific impeachment effort serves or detracts from those goals. That's how I believe a decision should be made. There are other ways to prosecute lawbreakers than going through the congress-numbing process of attempting to remove someone from office.

[immoderate]

72. OK, let's test it out.

Suppose our legislative goals are (to narrow the list: )

• Bring home the troops
  
• Rebuild New Orleans (without using FEMA or Halliburton, LOL)
  
• Reform Health Care (as in single payer)

Will these get through? Senate will block 'em.

I don't see how the impeachment process could cause more polarization than there is. This is a way to break the stalemate. No stone walling and executive privilege. Confront the bastards; put them on the defensive! If they really get scared, and only impeachment can scare them enough, the Republicans might go to Bush with demands, and what can they threaten him with, if there is no impeachment going on?

I don't see anything that will cause Bush to bring the troops home before 2009. He really wants them there indefinitely. Nothing will stop that except -- you guessed it -- impeachment!:bounce:

--IMM

[bigtree]

73. I think that the legislative process isn't as static as you think

And, I don't think we should abandon the process and rely on impeachment to cure all ills. The republican party IS on the defensive on Iraq. They are dug in on an extremely unpopular occupation. Just because there's been a predictable resistance from the majority we shouldn't assume that, in an election year, that enough of them can't be moved off of their bluff.

Impeachment is a blunt instrument which, in the end, will only reflect the political status quo. And I don't believe it should be used as a substitute for what we don't have enough votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. The folly of relying on just that one process would become more than clear if it obscured and distracted from other unrelated mischief which couldn't find the attention it deserved in the stifling atmosphere of an impeachment.

Those who are so willing to abandon the entire process of oversight and governance for the one option of impeachment need to assure that these other necessary functions also mandated by our legislators' oath are going to be upheld. I think it will be impossible to assure that in any impeachment atmosphere, and I'm not willing to accept that for just any old impeachment with no reasonable guarantee of a successful conviction.

And you know, just proclaiming the legislative process as over doesn't make it so. But initiating an impeachment will almost guarantee that.

[elocs]

79. "DU Orthodoxy"--now that term says it all. I'll have to remember that one.

Yes, you are allowed to have an opinion as long as it complies with DU Orthodoxy. Otherwise you are accused of being a DLCer or worse, a freeper. Kind of makes you wonder which party this is. I may disagree with somebody's opinion, but I respect their right to have it and will not call them names or consider them to be a coward or whatever if they do not agree with me. DU Orthodoxy, it's not much for independent thinking.

[John Q. Citizen]

43. No Confidence, if passed would have effected what? Toothless timetables would have done

what?

This line of argument is so hypocritical and transparent as to be ridiculous.

The congress has spent most of it's time attempting to pass bills that do nothing, yet won't attempt impeachment because if it falls on the votes to convict, it would do nothing?

You call this a strategy for Democratic victory?

Sorry, I call it insane.

[bigtree]

58. I don't think you have any ground at all to distinguish a process that doesn't intend to convict

from the regular legislative process which works toward consensus and reconciliation to advance the remedies and rebukes we all seek. Just being frustrated by the pace of that legislative process doesn't mean we have to automatically move to a dubious impeachment effort; not if that effort just intends to track the same debate with the same Congress and the same balance of power. Why would we expect a different result from the same operators just because we wrapped the same debate in an impeachment? That's insane, in my view.

And what is hypocritical? The rhetoric and attacks on dissent surrounding this issue around here is ridiculous.

[John Q. Citizen]

78. The pace isn't the issue. Condi is ignoring her subpoena at the same pace

everyday, as are other administration officials.

bush is ignoring civil law and international law at the same pace everyday.

And congress is ignoring the will of the people at the same pace everyday.

A conviction should never be assured for that would indeed be a kangaroo court, something you are apparently more comfortable with. Most Americans would be shocked by such a process, though, and rightly so.

First the indictment must be made, the evidence must be laid out and presented. Then if the evidence warrants a conviction will surely follow. The American people know this. This is how justice is done.

But without the first step, there is no chance for justice to prevail.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. I fully agree.

I don't think the "Clinton backlash" is anything to worry about. I don't think it will happen, frankly. People are fed up, even horrified.

I am still hoping for a fact-based action that builds and results in removing Bush and Cheney simultaneously. Maybe the Judiciary chairs are building toward that, but they can't do it fast enough for me. Gonzales has to go too. Each one of these guys belongs in prison.

Kucinich is giving them an "out" by going for Cheney first, allowing the Republicans to hand-pick a successor. That might be less politically charged, but it won't stop the war like President Pelosi would. It also won't stop or undo the other damage being done to our system of government.

Every day we don't impeach, it's like giving tacit approval.

[karlrschneider]

7. I'll put it on my wish list, right next to winning the Powerball tonight.

It's a damn shame DU doesn't have some real power but we're really just a couple thousand typists most of whom just sit on their fat asses. Sad but true.

[TwilightGardener]

18. "Most of whom just sit on their fat asses"--

Wienerdoggie turns to look at her fat ass, nods sadly in agreement...

[madokie]

31. madokie turns to look and guess what, no fat ass here

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, is the solution to our biggest problem

[hootinholler]

9. Impeachment without conviction is a positive step.

Frankly, I don't see the down side. The more the neocon cabal foams at the mouth the weirder-er they look.

Now, Impeachment means the facts surrounding the crimes are exposed, on the front page, established as fact and presented to the Senate. Finally, the people will have a coherent presentation of what the PNAC has been able to accomplish, in all its glory.

Why has congressional approval dropped since the electoral bump? I think it's a lack of prosecution of an obviously corrupt government. My opinion, only worth the electrons that conveyed it to you.

The other benefit is it becomes part of the public record and harder to twist in the wind of history.

I would like to see the top ten unreported crimes presented to the Senate. CSPAN would be riveting.

The following election cycle would be very interesting indeed. Once the public knows, I would expect some blowback for acquitting.

But my sky might be neon green.

-Hoot

[lyonn]

21. Another good reason for impeachment Hoot... you stated:

"Why has congressional approval dropped since the electoral bump?"

Congress got a bump Up after the elections. Since bush is going full steam ahead and no one is stopping him it makes sense that the poll numbers for Congress are going down again.

[Vincardog]

10. Impeach them all. After open public thorough investigations and the highlighting their

repeated gross violations of the constitution as well as myriad US and international laws.

We have to impeach to have any chance of returning to the company of lawful countries.

We also have the give the REICH wing NUTZ the chance to go down on/with bush one last time.

[Mz Pip]

12. I think the GOP knew

that there was no chance of convicting Clinton. That didn't stop them of pursuing the perjury about a blow job as far as they could. They just love dragging him through the mud.

I'd love to see it happen for Bunnypants. But it won't.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[JDPriestly]

52. And the impeachment of Clinton worked in so far as

it is highly unlikely that a future president will engage in sexual antics in or around the oval office. Highly unlikely. The impeachment should focus on behavior that we do not want future presidents to engage in.

[walldude]

13. Why is this still even a debate?

There is not a single good reason not to impeach the asshole in chief. Damn Dems are all worried about how it will "look". They are worried about the names they will be called. It's pathetic. Same thing they did with the Iraq funding bill, they are more worried about how they are perceived then they are about doing what's right.

[Amonester]

17. Don't forget the fact that they "receive" contributions, BIG ...

contributions (although never as BIG as the ones the Repugnant$ receive, but still ...) from the war-profiteering corporations (and from BIG oil too). What. Like they will say NO THanks to them?

never

[Amonester]

20. (I forgot to add:) never. Until the day contributions will be regulated

by public financing provisions.

BUT Still... Who's gonna have the guts to ever pass such a law (or "laws")??

[Individualist]

46. DLC doesn't want Bush to be impeached

[Vidar]

14. Absolutely agree.

[mirrera]

15. Agree, if not now when?

What can't these guys get away with? I keep hoping that all these hearings are impeachment hearings, but if the 'I" word gets used the hearings will be ignored while the media plays "that mean partisan Democrat Party" games.

[TwilightGardener]

19. Agree completely. Get the goddamn ball rolling before it's too late--

and besides, Freepers are openly using the "I" word now, because of Jorge Arbusto's immigration bill--they WANT US to do it.

[Kurovski]

16. K&R. (nt)

[EFerrari]

22. Impeach, indict. Say goodbye, it's time to go!

:kick:

[calimary]

23. HELL YES!!!! I'm sorry I don't remember who said it here - deep apologies

because he or she deserves great credit for it.

The comment was something on the order of -

Where in the Constitution does it say you seek redress against a rogue government or rogue government official - ONLY IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH VOTES?

I think that's a GREAT point and a FRICKIN' FABULOUS TALKING POINT.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where is the cowards'-way-out clause that relieves us or our reps of the responsibility to UPHOLD the Constitution and DEAL WITH those who defile it after having sworn on the Bible to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"? You pursue justice only when you think you can win. What kind of Upside-Down-Machiavelli-Gone-Mad crap is that???

The point is - it leaves "that" mark on his record. Regardless whether Bill Clinton was not convicted in the Senate - of the articles of impeachment brought by the House? The reference to his being impeached is all that will stick in anybody's minds, whether they be civilian or government insider, student or teacher, history reader or history writer. He was severely chastised in public, for the record, for all of history.

The magnitude of bush's MULTIPLE violations of the law and the Constitution is such that he deserves IMPEACHMENT at least a dozen times over. THAT needs to be in public, for the record, for all of history.

Some future president is gonna be at least somewhat more hesitant to mess around at the office as wantonly and recklessly as Clinton did.

And so too with this situation now. It is just beyond vital that we leave a very clear signal to future presidents and would-be presidents who would seek to game the system and abuse power and start unnecessary wars - that if you do that, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES. EVEN FOR YOU. We established back in the Nixon era that NO ONE is above the law. Not even the president. Nixon found that out the hard way but such were his misdeeds, sufficiently grave to warrant what happened to him (forced to resign in disgrace) and what was about to happen to him (certain impeachment, possible removal from office). That lesson has been forgotten (willfully so) in the past six-and-a-half years. It needs to be revisited, re-taught, and reimposed. 'Cause it's MORE than evident that somebody in DC desperately needs a refresher course.

Whether or not we "have the votes," this is STILL a priority. It just is.

[immoderate]

48. Yes! Failure to impeach is a tacit admission that the system does not work!

And maybe you or I could say that, but our elected officials can't!

--IMM

[EFerrari]

77. That's exactly right. n/t

[OneBlueSky]

24. the first rule of politics is self-preservation . . . when the evidence is presented . . .

woe to Senators who do NOT vote for conviction . . . their constituents will demand it . . .

the first rule of politics will prevail . . . it always does . . .

[bigtree]

26. if one occurs, it won't be some omnibus collection of charges

It's ridiculous and stupid to promote just any impeachment.

And the stupidity is multiplied by asserting that a conviction isn't essential to that proceeding.

A half-assed impeachment effort will galvanize the republicans, both in and out of Congress, and cause them to circle the wagons. And, talk about a ready-made distraction . . . There ARE other functions of accountability that Congress needs to focus on and elevate to a legislative level of concern. I'm sure this lame-duck administration, with NOTHING politically to lose in such a dubious effort, would like nothing more than to have some partisan, political trial to obscure and hide whatever mischief the impeachment doesn't cover from a thorough and public focus.

This is a pig in a poke that folks are trying to sell us. If we do initiate proceedings we had better be certain that the outcome will be more than some extension of the debates that are already occurring in Congress with no consequence.

There are other ways to 'legally restore and enforce the rule of law' and our party shouldn't be misled into abandoning those other levers of accountability that the constitution ALSO mandates for a pie in the sky panacea.

[lonestarnot]

38. I say we need to cover all the bases to stop the destruction of America.

Associated Press may be taking up the cause.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. The radical Republicans failed to convict Andrew Johnson but they crippled his presidency.

He was saved by what could be considered the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party.

Johnson was a "War" Democrat, and an outspoken proponent of harsh measures against the south, including hanging the leaders of the rebellion. This made him acceptable to the Republicans. After Lincoln's assassination, he changed his tune and aligned himself with the Democrats, favoring quick restoration of the southern states to the union and allowing prominent ex-Confederates to be elected to congress. The congress defied him and refused to seat the representatives and continued to press for equal rights for the ex-slaves.
He also appointed governments in the Southern states that introduced the "Black Codes" which kept the ex-slaves in a de facto form of slavery.

The actual charges against him had to do with the executive power to remove cabinet members (Stanton) that Lincoln had selected but the real battle was over equal rights. The first attempt to impeach failed. The second succeeded but 7 "moderate" Republicans voted with the Democrats and he was acquitted by one vote.

But, it was already late in his already crippled presidency. When Grant was elected, but not yet in office, as a final act he declared amnesty for all ex-confederates including the leaders. Grant spent much of his presidency attempting to undo the blatantly racist policies of Johnson.

Johnson should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. He wasn't but congress, at least, tried to remove him and worked to keep him from instituting the most egregious policies favoring the South.

[EVDebs]

45. Yes, the modernday equivalent of a 'tarring and feathering' as you can get nt

[JDPriestly]

51. It will move the focus from the Republican candidate in 2008

to what is going on now. The Republicans are just a bunch of corrupt, greedy hogs. The party needs to be exposed for what it is. Also, an impeachment proceeding that focuses on corruption will raise the consciousness of both Republicans and Democrats running for office to the fact that they cannot profit from their positions, cannot ignore their responsibilities, cannot use their positions to create a permanent power base for themselves and their friends. Impeachment is the only legal way we have to require our leaders to do our will. Yes. Impeachment is absolutely necessary right now. We need to let leaders on both sides know that impeachment is a tool that the American people will demand that that use. It is in the Constitution for a reason. If facts ever required an impeachment, the facts about the wrongdoing of the current federal administration require it. This is our only recourse under the Constitution.

[Harry Monroe]

55. I agree completely

It would also be hypocritical for the Repukes to scream "foul" at this when they impeached Clinton for lying about his sex life (and no one died for his lies except for a few million sperm cells). The only thing he harmed was his reputation and the trust of his family. If this is the low bar standard that they set in 1999, then surely you think impeachement of Bush for lying about this war, unwarranted spying and wiretapping of citizens in violation of the US Constitution, and condoning torture would be a slam dunk. Why aren't the current Democrat leadership pointing out the obvious hypocrisy and moving toward impeachment?? What we've got now are a bunch of spineless cowardly wimps in Washington. It doesn't bode well for 2008.

[EstimatedProphet]

56. Would you take an unsuccessful impeachment now over a successful one later?

And I know these aren't the only choices...

If the investigations build a watertight case that Bush is guilty, and it is clear to the country (that's the key thing) that Bush is guilty, then a successful impeachment and conviction is possible, without the ramifications of the rightwing press making an effective case that we're just grinding an axe.

Is that worth working toward? We don't have the case yet. Is it worth building a case, or is impeachment right this minute or else all that counts?

[ThomWV]

61. Yes because it would bring them to a screeching halt until 2008

Plus, I have every reason to believe he would be conviced in the Senate and removed from office.

[EstimatedProphet]

74. That's where we have our disagreement then

1) I don't believe he would be convicted in the Senate. I'm not saying that that disproves your argument, though. BUT:

2) I disagree that it would shut them down. Instead, I think the Repubs would use it to beat us over the heads about partizanship for the next 50 years. Because, if we attempt it and don't prove our case, that leaves us open to a continual media attack for forever. And they WILL use it.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

59. Ummm,...that didn't work out so well, last time. Convictions are NECESSARY, this time.

IMHO, of course.

Want to talk about political backlash? Look who's back in town being a hundred times more abusive than the Nixon administration. THAT is political backlash.

Want to talk about 'holding the country together'? How's about holding these power-abusing criminal RESPONSIBLE? THAT would hold the country together IMHO.

[libodem]

62. I say jump on it

I read a scenario, where we bomb, Iran, and go into Marshall law, as a lawless nation. The "Decider" becomes Dictator, under, his emergency plan. We never have another free election. Keep waitin', it'll be too late. Some might say 'tinfoil', libodem, but who would have 'thunk' so much other illegal shit could have happened. Complacency will come back to bite us in the ass. HURRY!!!

[AtomicKitten]

63. I agree -- it is clear only impeachment will stop this war (nt)

[Canuckistanian]

64. I see no reason to avoid impeachment proceedings

As kpete says, the "backwash" are foaming at the mouth for ANYTHING these days.

They've shown themselves to be fringe anyways, NOT representative of the whole electorate. They're just incredibly loud for their numbers.

Constitutional scholars such as Turley have said that legally, impeachment is a slam-dunk. There are laws that have obviously been broken, violations against both legislative law AND the Constitution.

Which is why this is so mystifying.

Can those 28% be allowed to dictate their terms to the nation?

[onenote]

80. "legally, impeachment is a slam dunk"? What does that mean?

At its basic core, impeachment is a political process as much as a legal process. Its not as if there is a court somewhere that gets to review the result of an impeachment proceeding. The Constitution could not be more clear: The Senate shall have the "sole power" to try all impeachments.

And if you think impeachment (either getting articles passed in the House or conviction in the Senate) would be a slam dunk, I suggest that you think about the last "slam dunk" prediction made in DC.

[Canuckistanian]

82. I meant "the case for impeachment" is a slam dunk

The legal case is on FAR more solid ground than was Clinton's impeachment.

The only thing preventing it is politics. Irrational, unpredictable politics.

And I more than realize that the current political situation makes it a near-impossibility without some major event that could change that.

[sampsonblk]

65. Investigate, then impeach

and let the chips fall where they may.

[bjobotts]

71. Excellent. Release the Hounds.

If you build it... they will come.
Start the impeachment and the investigation from a special prosecutor will bring out the corruption which is rampant in this administration. It's so overwhelming that you will get the votes necessary to indict. Never has there been such a legitimate call from the public to impeach. The longer the Dems put off doing this the weaker they are perceived.
The Democrats use to stand for something. By not wanting to upset the applecart with all their let's cooperate and be bipartisan crap they are missing what is clearly shown in the polls. Conservatism is a myth. The majority of Americans are progressive and feel we are being ignored for congressional Dems bipartisan tactics. Impeach Bush/Cheney. We want you to spend your time and energy and forget about getting other legislation passed. We don't care. We want you to impeach them now.
Take Pelosi off the table and impeach. Pelosi just threw her support to the Bush/Cheney corruption by promising they would not be held accountable. She might as well have said "Do whatever you want because we will not hold you accountable. Impeachment is off the table so have fun, go at it, shred the constitution because I won't let them impeach you."
Why did Pelosi ever say that to begin with. It was like a slap in the face. I mean she could have said nothing and left the option open but noooooo. She closed it down. Took it off the table. Saying I don't care what you may want or what they may do I, Pelosi< don't want to have to deal with it. Screw you Nancy. You're on their side by covering for them. "Ride off guys, I'll hold 'em back". Who asked you anyway? You'll be remembered in history not for your accomplishments but merely as the Speaker of the House who took impeachment off the table for the worst and most corrupt presidency in the history of our country.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

75. What's the worst that can happen?

If the Dems go forward with impeachment, even if it's unsuccessful, it will (as someone has already said) stop the damage. It will also go down on record that attempts were made to impeach this president, and people reading future history will want to find out why, and they will bother to learn what this administration has done.

[onenote]

81. several things

The repub base, currently divided and dispirited, gets a unifying boost in the arm. There is nothing we could do that would rally the repub base than pursue a partisan impeachment effort. If there is a bipartisan support for the effort, as was the case during the Nixon impeachment, go for it. If its purely partisan, it will rally the base and will give the repubs the opportunity to make political hay using statements made by the likes of Feingold and Wellstone during the Clinton impeachment effort. The result, instead of being on the offensive, many Democrats in marginally red districts would find themselves playing defense.