If We Can't Impeach Them Then The Next President Better Prosecute Them

[ThomWV]

That is all that I ask, that the next President, who will be a Democrat, take care to see that a Special Prosecutor is appointed as well as suitably staffed and funded to pursue investigations into illegal activity by the Executive branch of Government between January 2001 and December 2008 and to indict and prosecute as appropriate to the full extent of the laws violated.

If this rump Congress will not do its job of defending the Constitution we might hope that the next President will.

If these people do not go to jail for the crimes committed right before the very eyes of every citizen then we have no law and if we have no law we have no country.

[KT2000]

1. Well said

:thumbsup:

[MiniMe]

2. This will be interesting. The next president will have access to

the current President's records, at least I would assume they would. How could they not? They would have to have the records in order to know what is going on. Anything that Bush decrees by executive order can be overridden by another executive order by the next president. What will happen when the next President has the documents to prove the crimes of this administration?

[book_worm]

3. It pisses me off that the Republicans were able to impeach (not convict)

Clinton for lying about a consensual sex act, but that the Dems are so reluctant to begin impeachment against a president and VP who have proven to have broken the law on numerous ocassions and put our troops in harms way over many of those packs of lies. They thumb their noses at us all the time and Bush and Cheney think they can get away with anything--and unfortunate they probably can because the Dems in congress are such a pack of wusses afraid to do anything.

[laylah]

4. Welcome to DU

book_worm! :toast:

The Republics have thumbed their noses at WE, the People, for decades now. As the OP stated, since we cannot depend on this Congress to do their freakin' jobs and take care of these bastards for us, we will have to depend on our next President to do what is right.

[mediawatch]

6. They don't have the numbers to impeach

Just like they didn't have the numbers to impeach Clinton. Yes Congress voted for impeachment, but you needed 2/3 of the senate to vote for impeachment and they didn't have the numbers.

With that said, what about putting some effort into health care for all, or how about protecting the middle class and start curbing the outsourcing of our jobs. Here is something else they could put some effort into, how about lowering the interest rates on college loans or helping the homeless find shelter. Don't forget about crime. The there is getting us out of Iraq

Don't forget global warming, gas price gouging... I could go on

But instead of doing those things we are more concerned investigations that go now were, subpoenas that don't mean anything. A congress with a 23% approval rating, now that is flattering.
Put the anger away and start working on real issues.

[book_worm]

7. They have the votes in the house to impeach and that is taking a stand, by God!

I know they don't have the votes to convict (but who knows if enough dirt comes out at a trial and the GOP wants to get rid of Mr. 26% because he will cost them the election in 08 they may just kick his ass out too)but it's taking a stand which counts. This is not some kind of game like the '98 thing was with Clinton these are real crimes. Yes, the House could impeach both Chimpy and Dick head.

[mmonk]

9. Don't confuse impeachment with conviction.

An affirmative vote for articles of impeachment is impeachment. Substitute the word indictment for impeachment and the meaning of the term becomes recognizable. To pretend to know the outcome of the senate trial is to pretend to have the knowledge of a god.

[mediawatch]

15. bookworm and mmonk

you missed my point, but first let me say I have knowledge of god.

The point I was trying to make was let's put our energy into health care, job protection, lowering the interest rate on college loans, helping the homeless, getting out of Iraq etc.... so many other things that need fixing and attention.

I am sick of hearing about having hearings, investigations that go nowhere, impeachments that wont happen and the best one is a non binding vote

[mmonk]

17. People are being told we don't have the numbers to impeach.

Therefore, we need to get on with "governing" and legislate. But here is the truth. We have the numbers to impeach. We don't have the numbers for a veto proof majority concerning legislation.

[mmonk]

5. Impeachment can still happen when they leave office.

It can serve to make the chances they re-enter government impossible. Afterall, there are criminals from the Iraq Contra hearings serving under this administration. Maybe we could learn some sort of lesson from history since the other lessons of history have been stubbornly ignored.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ezlivin]

10. "Next president" Ha, ha!

Like we'll have another election.

Didn't you get the memo? We are now living in the land of the Unitary Executive.

And if that doesn't work for you, perhaps the upcoming declaration of martial law will.

If cynicism were people I'd be China.

[L. Coyote]

11. If a crime is evidenced, prosecution will follow, and that means right now.

This is how the justice system works. This is also why the Bush Administation is not readily providing information sought by Congress. Crimes are prosecuted! And, one such crime is not responding to a lawful subpoena.

There will be a special prosecutor long before the next election. Any day now is likelier than not, given the conflicts of interest already shown. We have Gonzales' and McNulty's recusals already, and McNulty resigned effective this month. At some point, this inquiry has to move out of the chain of command, or Gonzales has to resign. Bush might fire Gonzales to avoid a special prosecutor's independence.

[bvar22]

12. If History is an indicator,

ALL will be forgiven as the Democratic Leadership closes ranks with Republican Leadership to protect the system and keep the $MONEY$ rolling in. (See Clinton 1992)

I WOULD like to see the Democratic candidates asked this question.
I certainly would love to see these criminals standing before a War Crimes and Profiteering Tribunal.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

13. The list of Presidential pardons in January 2009 will be HUGH!!11!1

Count on it.

[GreenTea]

16. Not a fucking chance!!

Wait until you see the shape of our economy these criminals in power will leave this country in...it'll play second to all the laws they've broken and crimes they HAVE committed!!!

Unfortunately, if Bush and his republican crooks can manipulate things for another eighteen month's including the busted housing bubble...all the theft and incompetence will be blamed on 9/11, "war on terror" and of course CLINTON, somehow! Whomever wins the presidency is fucked but the American people are really the ones who will be fucked good and hard too...

If another republican is elected president they will just lie, and shift the blame onto the Dems, while cutting every social program possible....that was all part of their thievery master plan don't you think...of course lining their own pockets was number one!

Just like crime family head, pappy...hide the mess and the stealing till after your gone, then it's too late! But even "Poppy" wasn't able to thieve like Jr. & the boys have, with all republican branches & courts in Bush's favor for six years...the republicans even now, are still covering up for the little fucker Bush!!

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Feducate%2Fcollege%2Fpolisci%2Farticles%2F20070603.htm

[pat_k]

18. And the demand that the 111th Congress impeach "in absentia"

Both impeachment and prosecution are of absolute necessity if we are to confront the truth as a nation and move forward in honesty. It is a moral imperative, even if one, the other, or both, must be "in absentia" years from now.

Retribution -- prosecution and punishment -- is for the Courts. Failure to turn them over to the Hague for prosecution for War Crimes is an intolerable breach our international compact and our commitment to the pursuit of justice.

Impeaching is a defensive act. It is the power to enforce -- to "support and defend" -- the dictates of our Constitution. It is the means by which we assert our sovereign authority over the people we "hire" to serve us. Failure to impeach is intolerable appeasement and surrender to fascism. The formal accusation must be made. Only Our Congress; Our Voice can unequivocally "draw the line."

We can't leave it to the next occupant of the Office of the President to "restore" the dictates of our Constitution (as Edwards and others promise). To hand over the power to "restore" is just the flip side of handing over the power to "nullify."

Passing new laws to "restore" the dictates that were never "gone," only violated, feeds the "big lie" -- that the violations somehow had the "force of law." (e.g., The pretense McCain's anti-torture amendment was necessary just fed the lie that our laws did not already and unequivocally forbid torture. Passing law to "restore" habeas is no different.)

Impeachment is the means by which we can confront the violations head on as a nation. It doesn't matter if the minions of the offenders in the Senate refuse to declare them guilty. Forcing Senators to take sides -- to stand for American principle or Fascist principle -- exposes them for what they are. The American people will stand in judgment of them in the next election.

[beachmom]

19. A cautionary tale by Robert Parry on this:

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:




Go to the link to read the whole sorry story.