A note to "We don't have the votes" impeachment naysayers

[pat_k]

It doesn't matter if too many of Bush and Cheney's minions in the Senate refuse to declare them guilty. Forcing Senators to take sides -- to declare themselves for American principle or Fascist principle -- exposes them. The American people will stand in judgment of them in the next election.

The Constitution -- amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect as we strive to "form a more perfect union" -- calls on us to put our trust in our fellow Americans (you know, "We the People"). If we aren't willing to do that, how can we claim to stand for true American values?

[acmavm]

1. You're right. And by the same token, those that keep saying that we don't

have the votes showing what they're made of as well.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. They will also judge congress for not getting anything done...

Clinton's approval rating went up 10 points when the Republic Party started talking about impeachment and they came close to losing control of the House of Representatives in 1998 when they should've gained seats.

If the American people don't know what side each Senator is on then they have been sleeping through the past 6.5 years.

[pat_k]

3. Only impeachment "gets something done." All else is impotent gesture.

The bushcheney steamroller will steamroll everything they do (short of impeachment), just as "the decider" has steamrolled everything they have done.

There is no "getting things done" under rule by signing statement." Who do they think would enforce laws they passed -- even if they passed with a veto-proof majority? Bush?!?? It would be laughable if it weren't so horrifyingly tragic.

They weren't elected to "get things done" they were elected to "STOP BUSH." Polls after the election couldn't be clearer. (http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">like this one)

Given the impeachment of Clinton is the opposite of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney in EVERY way, drawing a parallel to Clinton tells us absolutely nothing. (list below)

I posed the following simple question in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1159484">another thread. I have yet to have an answer. Perhaps you can.

Where do you think "backlash" capable of overcoming the overwhelming disgust with Bush could come from? What faction that is not already "galvanized" against the Democrats could be "galvanized" by impeachment?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Clinton was very popular nationally and internationally
  
  Bush is a national and international pariah


• Clinton's offense was a trivial, personal matter that had absolutely no relation to the integrity of our constitution and our government. (It wasn't even perjury as many claim because the court found that the lie was immaterial to the Jones case).
  
  Bush and Cheney are committing violations of law so grave they are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min"). They have arrogated unto themselves absolute and unlimited power that violates the SOLE moral principle on which our nation is founded (i.e., the principle of consent). They are violating the constitution and destroying the integrity of the nation.


• Clinton's impeachment was forced through despite the opposition of a majority of Americans
  
  A majority of Americans want Bush impeached (60% "want the bush presidency over now" and 51% wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new congress -- a number that has undoubtedly grown, but pollsters are inexplicably refusing to poll on impeachment)


• The impeachment of Clinton supposedly "distracted" Clinton from accomplishing things that a vast majority of the nation wanted him to accomplish. (It probably had very little real effect; it only took a couple months start to finish.)
  
  The impeachment of Bush and Cheney could "distract" them from accomplishing an agenda that the vast majority of the American people want stopped.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. The impeachment of Clinton did distract him from accomplishing things

The President has more things to do than he has time to do. Everyone is trying to get 5 minutes with the President to push their agenda in some way or another. Think about how many meetings Clinton had to skip when he was spending most of the day defending himself.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. Maybe the impeachment of * will keep him from attacking Iran? n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

26. Or, more likely, it will greatly increase the chances of an attack on Iran.

Nothing like another war to keep the public's attention diverted.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

31. It is their MO to distract the populace in that manner...

I am sorry that I have to agree that is a possibility.

[pat_k]

32. Impeached Bush orders attack, the Joint Chiefs resign, Gates resigns . . .

. . . and as Americans cheer their courage, Bush will be hard pressed to find someone willing to execute his order before the Congress sends over the Capital Police to escort Bush and Cheney to the Capitol basement and lock them as the Senate immediately convenes and votes to remove.

It will be like the "Saturday night massacre," except this time the chance of finding a "Bork" in the ranks is low.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

39. And the price of inaction (not impeaching) provides a terrible

precedent for this country. These are criminals, and it is the sworn DUTY of Congress to hold them accountable -- regardless of *'s possible reaction to the event of impeachment.

[pat_k]

42. Hear, Hear!

[pat_k]

30. Clintons lawyers did the defending

. . .Impeachment actually took little of Clintons time. That's what lawyers are for.

But that is irrelevant. If it is true that impeachment distracts a President, fantastic. Distract the outlaws in the White House from advancing their criminal agenda.

[puebloknot]

29. k&R Perfectly expresssed, as always, and a good counterpoint...

...to those who are always ready to jump into impeachment threads and accuse those of us who advocate getting the show on the road of having tantrums, demanding what we want now, and not a moment later.

Since when is exercising our voices as citizens of the United States of America comparable to a temper tantrum? Let's get together and have one of those tantrums where we throw tea in Boston Harbor!!!! And let's do it with gusto, with (oh, the horror)...EMOTION!!!!

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. The Clinton argument is old and stale. Give it a rest already..

The public revolted and voted against the repubs because they KNEW IT WAS A FRIVOLOUS ACT OF PARTISAN POLITICS. It was pure abuse of power by the repubs to invade the mans PRIVATE LIFE.

This time, over 70% of Americans KNOW that this is a criminal administration and will stand behind WHOEVER gets them out of power, so yeah, let the ones who keep preaching that "the repubs need to start the impeachment process so it doesn't look partisan"... keep trying to take away votes from Democrats. The ones saying this are moles and trolls. Period. They're trying to frame the Dem response to ensure republickan victory. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS DAMMIT!! WE NEED TO IMPEACH... NOW!!!!!!!

[Hosnon]

4. I agree, to a degree.

I certainly agree that the purpose of impeachment is not limited to conviction. One other purpose is forcing the conduct of the administration to the front page.

And I think it would be good precedent for Congress to impeach a President who took us to war on questionable bases.

[Vincardog]

5. to war on questionable bases? Lied us into war. MIHOP see the DSM

[Hosnon]

6. Ok.

I don't believe Bush lied...I just think he chose the least likely representation of reality from among a large list, i.e., his judgment sucks.

Either way (moron or liar) he should be impeached.

Edit: Spelling.

[Vincardog]

7. * is A Criminally self indulgent psychopath with the empathy of a slug.

He can not even conceive of another person's suffering Even when he visits Walter Reed.

[pat_k]

11. Yep. Impeachment hearings would be covered 24x7. . .

. . .by the info-tainment outlets. The combined coverage of all 50 or 100 (or however many) hearings they are holding now would be a drop in the bucket compared to the coverage impeachment hearings would get.

But the House needs to keep it simple. A couple charges. They must refrain from trying to expose all the horrifying "conduct." If they get bogged down in legalistic detail and a slew of charges, they will lose the American people overnight.

They could impeach on torture and "rule by signing statement." A couple examples of each would be enough to nail down an overwhelming case. (e.g., Abusing signing statements and claiming the power to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment, which passed the house 90-9 is the "poster child" for the 1000+ of signing statements.)

Once Congress puts a couple key accusations on the table, you can bet the "news" networks will do their own "piling on." ("They could have impeached on X." "Why didn't they impeach on Y?" "Wouldn't Z have been a stronger case?")

The facts and the Constitutional and moral principles that make the case can be kept incredible simple. If Dems keep it simple and grounded in principle -- American principle vs. Fascist principle, and avoid endless and legalistic details, and they expose the truth and become heroes and champions of the Constitution.

[bigtree]

10. right got ya, convictions don't matter

let's abandon all other levers of accountability short of impeachment (even if they ultimately lead there anyway) and take the viscerally satisfying course, no matter how ineffective it will be in the end.

[pat_k]

12. ???

Where do you get "abandon all other levers of accountability?" Given that I just posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1166710&mesg_id=1169099">this and have never said anything that was not consisent with it, your characterization is off the reservation.

[bigtree]

17. I think that an impeachment would put this Congress off of many of those other 'levers' of oversight

and accountability -- many of which could very well lead to an actual prosecution

[pat_k]

22. They can't walk and chew gum? The only time you need them all. . .

. . .is for the vote. (or at least a quorum)

If all those staffers on the Hill aren't capable of juggling a few things, they've got bigger problems then being "distracted" by impeachment.

If they do successfully remove or force resignation, they'll have a heck of a lot more power to break through the Unconstitutional and Un-Americans wall of stone Bush and Cheney have erected around the executive.

[madokie]

13. How in the heck do you know that it will be ineffective in the end if it isn't tried

what brand of crystal ball you got there bro':shrug:

[bigtree]

the point is that many are saying that, even if there's a reasonable chance it won't succeed

we should drop everything else and bull forward. Who the heck in our party is going to stand in the way of an impeachment effort which looks to have enough bipartisan support to proceed? I'm not one of those who believes our Democrats are somehow so corrupt that they wouldn't want to see Bush fall. What I think is that they can count the numbers in their political jury like anyone else can. The effort has to be solid and bipartisan to advance in the institution. I really don't think that can happen without some outside prosecution and indictment. Why would republicans capitulate and relinquish the advantage their numbers provide to block any removal of the Executive? When they are able to put such an effort together, I imagine they'll proceed. Until then, they can read the 'verdict' like anyone else looking on.

[madokie]

19. Impeach the bastards win or lose, no if and or buts about it

at this point in time I really don't give a damn either way. I know whats the right thing to do and that is to start the impeachment proceeding, you believe what you want, I give up.

[annabanana]

14. Congress's "approval rating" would soar...

The individuals who blindly follow the syndicate would be absolut toast!

[pat_k]

16. Spot On!!

[Old and In the Way]

15. It's the right thing to do, regardless of the voting outcome.

There would be 2 trials, so to speak. One in the Senate and 1 in the next election. If, as I believe, the vast majority of Americans support articles of impeachment, then Republicans will vote against the the wishes of the American people at their own peril.

More importantly, an impeachment addresses 2 vital issues-

(1) We are sending a message to the world that we acknowledge the criminal wrong done in our name to the rule of international law.
(2) We are sending a message to future wannabe Cheney's that you trash the Constitution at extreme personal risk. What will future generations say if we abdicate our duty to protect our country against lawless criminals? If this administration's actions do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, I don't know what does.

[pat_k]

18. . . .and we redeem our self-esteem as Americans.

Not a bad day's work!!!

And impeaching Bush and Cheney could literally be done in a day. The case is grounded in deeply-held moral principles. Like the principle of consent -- the sole moral principle on which the nation is founded; the principle from which all others flow. The Dems could actually demonstrate unshakeable and absolute moral certainty! (No caveats, no ifs, ands or buts -- Yes Virginia, there are absolutes in life.)

Bush and Cheney confess their guilt every time they invoke the fascist fantasy of unitary executive power to do X, because X is always a violation of law and Constitutional dictates. (if it weren't, why invoke the fantasy?)

[madokie]

21. this bullshit of we don't have the votes just pisses me off to no end

how in the hell can anyone know if we don't have the votes if we don't at least try. I could care less what the outcome is, I know what is the right thing to do and that is impeach. I have 15 months in a very hostile enviroment leading me.

[pat_k]

25. Makes ya wanna scream or cry, doesn't it?

All you have to do is think for two minutes about the choice impeachment forces Senators to make.

They can oppose removal and

1. "Stand with" the Pariah in Chief and his puppet master -- the pair they are practically scrambling over each other to "distance" themselves from.


2. Defend the Unconstitutional, Un-Americans, and patently absurd claim that our Constitution gives the Office of the President the "right" to violate law by fiat, as long as they claim they are doing it to "protect us."


3. Tell the American public that they didn't mean it when they voted for McCain's anti-torture amendment (passed 90-9). That they were happy Bush ordered the various agencies to continue to kidnap, secretly and indefinitely hold, and torture anyone Bush arbitrarily labels "enemy combatant, in direct violaton of both the existing law and the new law. (The Geneva conventions are part of U.S. Code so when they broke Geneva, they break our laws.)


4. They would have to defend Bush's claim that his scribble next to McCain's amendment, and about a thousand others, actually nullifies/modifies the provision. That is, they would have to defend Bush's "right" to render Congress powerless. (Render THEM, the Senate, with their big fat egos, powerless).


5. They would have to take a public position that would hand all these fascist powers to unitary executive Hillary, or Obama, or whoever.

OR they can support removal and

Reject the fascist fantasies invoked by both Bush and Cheney, vote "guilty," and thus hand the keys to the White House to Pelosi.

Now, you tell me. Given that choice, what do you think Republican Senators would do?

I know what I think. They would be marching over to the White House in mass to force Bush and Cheney to resign and hand the keys to a successor the House and Senate agree to immediately confirm. {I figure Danforth, but that just a guess.}

[Individualist]

27. Me too!

It sounds like a DLC meme.

[H2O Man]

23. There are always

people who believe it is better to sit like bumps on a log, and wring their hands while they come up with a list of good reasons to not take any action. They are dead weight that get in the way of progress.

[TahitiNut]

45. Clay feet are in fashion, again, in some circles.

:shrug: They never appealed to me.


"'Despotism'?? Gee, Tom. I don't think we should write that. It'll really make George III angry. Let's not be so harsh!"

[madokie]

48. My heart breaks

I wanta beleve in something anything

[MGKrebs]

24. If the vote is held and lost, there would be almost zero chance of another

attempt. Therefore, if it is thought that the votes might possibly become available at some point, it would be imprudent to waste the attempt now.

I'm not defending them on this. I have no idea if that is what they are thinking, but it did occur to me so I thought I would throw it out there.

It's the Republicans we have to ask why they won't support impeachment.

[pat_k]

28. Why almost zero chance?

If the House finally gets serious about impeachment (and if they vote out a Bills of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney they are presumably serious) what would stop them from voting out another two if the first goes down in the Senate?

Tragically, Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution on so many fronts, they have plenty to pick from. If the Repubs took some weasel way out, they could make sure they close the "loophole" the second time around.

The way to "ask" Republicans whether or not they support impeachment is to force them to vote on specific charges. In others words, draft articles, present the case, and put it to a vote. Find out where the House stands.

If we consider the options Republican Senators will face if the House impeaches Bush and Cheney, the notion that defeat is certain evaporates. Just described those options in another post here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1169359&mesg_id=1170206

[onenote]

33. at the moment we don't appear to have the votes to impeach, let alone convict

Yes there is a Democratic majority in the House, but that doesn't mean that a majority of the House wants or would vote to start the impeachment process. Indeed, since only 8 members have signed on as cosponsors of the resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney, I think its safe to say that there is a lack of enthusiasm for this cause at the moment. And its not suprising. There are more than 30 blue dog Democrats who come from relatively red-leaning districts where the sentiment probably runs against a partisan impeachment effort.

Its not a reality I like, but its the reality we have.

[pat_k]

47. Each of your assertions has been addressed. . .

. . .in other exchanges. Links to a couple of those exchanges are provided in the following.

The beliefs that are invoked to defend the "off the table" edict are pervasive and damaging. They must be challenged if we are rescue ourselves and our nation from complicity with the outrages committed by the outlaws in the White House.

Many here on DU have been posting the moral, factual, and logical cases against the various arguments for quite a while. For example, the exchange that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x34242#34533">this Jun 14th post or one that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3146696#3147620">this Mar 16th post covers:

1. The simple truths and moral principles that make the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney a moral obligation for each and every Member of the House and Senate. (This case is the ultimate "bottom line.")


2. The facts that contradict the assertion that impeachment is a "legal process," when it is a purely political process.


3. The compelling evidence and confessions that make the case that Bush and Cheney are committing intolerable violations of our Constituiton. Offenses that go far beyond "impeachable." The outlaws built the cases against themselves. It's all public record. (e.g., The fact that the case for War Crimes has already been adjudicated by SCOTUS.)


4. Impeachment is a DEFENSIVE act of absolute necessity to enforce the dictates of our Constitution and assert our sovereignty. Ir is not retribution. Retribution -- prosecution and punishment -- is for the Courts.


5. The arguments that not only is continued "investigation" unnecessary, asserting the need to "investigate" undermines the simple and compelling cases that Bush and Cheney must be removed because the claim "we must investigate first" promotes the lie that "we don't have a case" when we do.


6. The reasons that "Can't Win; Won't Fight" is so insidious and politically destructive.


7. The events, polls, and examples from history that demonstrate the many ways that impeaching Bush and Cheney and fighting to remove them can do more to benefit the Democratic Party than anything they have done for decades.


8. The events, polls, and examples from history that demonstrate the many ways that FAILING to impeach Bush and Cheney will not just be devastating to the nation, it will damage the Democratic Party, and by extension every candidate who runs under the Democratic banner.


9. The analysis of the current dynamics and probable consequences of impeachment that support the conclusion that victory, either resignation or removal, is not only possible, it is likely.

Note: the entire case against the excuses for "off the table" that are so pervasive is embodied in items 1, 2, and 3. The remaining political and results oriented arguments are not essential since the moral obligation trumps (i.e., the duty we have charged Members of Congress with and the facts that trigger that duty). But the results-oriented cases -- that the impeachers can win; that impeachment will politically benefit the Democratic Party; that failure to impeach will damage them -- can make it easier for the political animals on the Hill to see what duty demands, and do it.

Since the details are laid out in the referenced exchanges, there is no reason to repeat them here. Dialog can be an effective way to make a case. The "real life" dialogs demonstrate what lobbying for impeachment is like. (It's kinda like a game of "whack a mole.")

To date, I haven't encountered an argument against impeachment that stands up, but if you believe to be factual and logical counter-arguments that have not already been covered in the referenced exchanges, I'm more than happy to respond.

[onenote]

53. Nothing in my post is about the merits of impeachment, its about the assumption

that while we don't have the votes to convict, we do have the votes to impeach in the House. And my point is that we may not actually have those votes. Saying that we should doesn't change the reality.

[pat_k]

54. The Self-Defeating Prophecy

We obviously don't "have" the votes to impeach Bush and Cheney or they would already be impeached. The only way to find out if you "have" the votes is to put it to a vote.

And that vote is more likely as more of us recognize the devastating consequences of their current dereliction to the nation and the Party, the political benefits they would reap by impeaching, and the case that victory is not just possible, it is probable. The horrifying reality is that the USA is now a war criminal nation that spies on its own citizens, and that we will remain so until the people we charged with defending us against such horrors stand up and do their job.

Helping each other, and Members of Congress, to recognize the simple truths, moral principles, and stark realities is how "enthusiasm" is built. To make impeachment a reality, those who undermine the effort must be challenged.

You are undermining the effort.

Your declaration that we "don't have the votes" (whether in the House or Senate), is the self-defeating prophecy at the heart of "can't win; don't fight" -- the most insidious of all the rationalizations for failing to impeach discussed in the referenced exchanges. It's an assertion that saps energy. Whether or not you realize it, your self-defeating prophecies are Anti-impeachment because they crush the will to fight for impeachment.

The self-defeating prophecy, in what ever form, says "go back to bed" America.

Seeking to undermine an effort may not be an Anti-impeachment "statement" (a "statement" denigrating the merits), but it is nevertheless Anti-impeachment..

[Kablooie]

62. Because most Americans haven't heard the reasons why we should impeach.

If impeachment became a national discussion, the balance would change.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Phredicles]

40. News flash: Nothing's getting done WITHOUT impeachment;

Thanks again for another excellent thread, pat k!

[pat_k]

46. Assertions without basis. . .

. . .do not constitute counter-arguments.

Each of your assertions has already been addressed in past exchanges. Links to a couple of those exchanges are provided in the following. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1169359&mesg_id=1170829

[TahitiNut]

35. 218 (House) votes to impeach and 55 (Senate) votes to remove is BETTER than Zero votes in both.

... and apparently over 90% of DU agrees.

:shrug:

NOBODY knows how many Senators will vote to remove. Nobody.

[pat_k]

36. Every Member who votes Yea breaks the bonds of complicity.

You are Spot On.

Every person who votes Yea, and every American who supports them, will enjoy the enormous personal, moral, and political benefits of having done so.

Such acts can transform a nation.

[Yukari Yakumo]

37. DU =/= The Public. Heck, DU =/= Democrats in general.

[pat_k]

38. That's your counter-argument? Not a particularly effective challenge.

No factual or logical challenge the content?

[TahitiNut]

44. Who said it was? Who the fuck cares? What's the point?

Sheesh! DU isn't FreeRepublic, either! Maybe that's more relevant!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

50. Have read all your posts of the last month...

and the common theme/meme is "DON'T DO ANYTHING TO STIR THE POT -- IT WILL ONLY HURT THE DEMS"

I think your attitude to roll over and play complacent is more than faulty. What purpose does this board serve for you? It seems odd that one would participate on a progressive chat forum only to continuously voice opposition to action. :shrug:

[MGKrebs]

41. Are there negative consequences for trying and failing?

This is all speculation, but the evidence and consensus seems to be that it would likley fail. It seems the essential argument is that we have to balance potential negative consequences of failing against the apparently miniscule chance of winning and whatever symbolic or morale gains we achieve.

[pat_k]

43. Voting a Bill of Impeachment out of the House is a win.

Every Republican vote in the Senate is a win.

Every American who concludes "These outlaws must go go" is a win.

Every Republican who pushes for resignation, publicly or privately, is a win.

There is no downside to impeachment. Really. None. Nada. And the benefits could be enormous. It is an unprecedented opportunity. They get to do the RIGHT thing and the WINNING thing all at the same time. Imagine that!

It is their failure to Impeach that has Congressional approval in a nose dive . As long as they refuse to impeach, Democrats do nothing but prove their impotence as the bushcheney steamroller rolls over them. The Dems have long has the "wimp" image problem. They are exacerbating that problem when they could be solving it. They complain (because accusation without action is nothing but complaint), they fingerwag, but as long as they refuse to take out the ONLY "lethal" weapon in their arsenal and go after the outlaws, they are hamstrung by those outlaws.

The bottom line is that it impeachment is a moral imperative. The choice is simple. Duty or dereliction and complicity.

When principle demands action, outcome expectations have no place in the decision to act. But it can make it easier to act when you know you can win (they can) and you know action will benefit you (it will) and that failure to act will harm you (it will). See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1137128&mesg_id=1151877">Why Dems fail (and why impeachment is the cure).

[madokie]

49. lets do something

something

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Problem Is You Have No Idea Who The American People Will Judge More Harshly. None.

It may very well be us, by huge degrees. That doesn't necessarily mean the effort should not be put forth based on principle, but it does mean that there is potentially a huge risk for public dissatisfaction with our move, if it occurred.

Maybe they'd see things our way and rally behind us. Maybe they'd find it petty and turn against us. Fact is we don't know.

But as anyone who has read 'The Assault On Reason' knows, the media has a huge role in the PR campaign. Based on what we've seen the past few years, are you comfortable with the premise that the media will be on our side when it comes down to the public perception debate? Not so sure about that, and in the end of it all that's what's gonna matter most.

[pat_k]

55. There is no claim to know the outcome. . .

You may want to re-read the post, because it seems you are responding some other post.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. "The American people will stand in judgment of them in the next election."

It appeared the whole reasoning of your OP was that we should put our trust in the American people that they will judge those not voting for impeachment appropriately, and therefore we should move forward with it.

I think I responded with a quite germane and directly related premise as to why that might not be something to so quickly put trust in; for the reasons I stated. So maybe you should re-read mine.

[pat_k]

57. And I asked a question of those unwilling to trust. . .

Judgment is simply that -- judgment. A decision. Some may support the fascist Republican. Others may vote for a Republican challenger. Still others may leave the Party and choose choose a Democratic candidate. Others may completely betray that trust and seek to corrupt the outcome -- and it is our duty to insist that our election officials thwart such people and ensure a result we can have confidence in.

The question that follows:

"The Constitution -- amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect as we strive to "form a more perfect union" -- calls on us to put our trust in our fellow Americans (you know, "We the People"). If we aren't willing to do that, how can we claim to stand for true American values?

[CK_John]

52. A trial in the Senate will take less than 2 hours. They will waive reading of charges and

call for an immediate vote. Not guilty less than 2/3 required. We will look like the biggest assholes in the world.

[pat_k]

58. How will those who voted Guitly "look like assholes?"

It is an opportunity for those who know the truth to take a stand. Only those who choose to violate our treasured principles "look like assholes."

And those who "support and defend; who render a verdict grounded in moral principle and reality can fight to force their fellow Members to once again to choose. If articles went down in the House or Senate because they mistakenly left the Fascists a defense, they can step back and pick violations for which there is no defense (and there are many). They fight to vote out another set.

"We" don't look like "assholes" unless we give up the fight. And you can bet the world will be rooting for "the good guys."

If we fail to fight, there are no "good guys." Only then does our nation truly look like "assholes.

I for one am commited to the fight to redeem our self-esteem as Americans. Fortunately a majority of the nation are with us -- despite the efforts to fool Americans into believing that something short of impeachment can stop them. Despite the relentless "can't/won't/shouldn't" propaganda.

Even those who have been fooled into believing the "can't/won't/shouldn't" actually know the truth. They know Congress is mired in impotence. They see the weakness of the Democratic leadership as they go forward, "business as usual" as if we are not facing the most dire crisis of our times.

The American people can tell a real fight from a sham fight. And they the nose dive in Congressional approval is an expression their disdain for the current sham. Many may have bought the "can't/won't/shouldn't propanda, but when the real fight begins they will be cheering.

-----------------------------
P.S. I am still awaiting an answer to my question from the naysayers. The responses to date all side step the question posed in this thread, and in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1159484">this one. These are questions that have been asked many times. Still waiting. . . .

[GeorgeGist]

59. "We don't have the votes" ...

is just code for "Congress is too corrupt".

[mmonk]

60. We have the votes, not the willingness.

So that disinformation is offered up. As far as conviction in the Senate, I think we would get a republican or two. The pressure would be huge on them.

[Kablooie]

61. If someone started the ball rolling, the American people might force the votes to appear.

Right now, most people aren't aware of the arguments so aren't for impeachment.
If the arguments became a national public discussion, that would change.

[pat_k]

63. When a champion gives outrage a voice, Watch Out!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2694923&mesg_id=2699414