I Hope Bush (&/or Dick) is Impeached and AQUITTED.

[yodermon]

This thread got me thinking.

The biggest argument against impeachment on DU is that there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict, thus emboldening our little dictators to further their rein of terror-for-profit.

I disagree.

The evidence that will be presented at Impeachment Hearings (everyone seems to forget that you have a Trial with Witnesses and Testimony, gosh fancy that) will be so profoundly evil, shocking, and Constitution-shredding that one of two things will happen:

1) The evidence will be so vile and dramatic that public opinion will FORCE the Republicon senators(+joe) to convict.
OR

2) The Republicon Senators(+joe) will vote to acquit, and will subsequently face the rage of the voters in November '08. The 'cons, already leery of shrub and dick, will be forced to take a stand, and if they stand WITH the crooks after all of their shit-stained laundry is aired on national TV, then they will cause the immediate an irreversible destruction of the Republicon party on all levels of government.

Haven't we all thought "man, if the public just KNEW what I know and have learned here on DU... there would be an immediate revolution!"

News Flash: IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS ACCOMPLISH THIS. Waxman or Conyers or one of the other committee chairs has recently stated that these "oversight hearings" currently underway are "in lieu" of impeachment hearings, kinda sorta. "We shall embarrass them to death" is the current thinking. That's just great, but these "hearings", as popular and server-dimming as they are on DU, simply don't get the exposure that good old IMPEACHMENT hearings would get. People would notice. People would talk. The tide of public opinion, already trending against shrubco, would turn into a tsunami. I believe this as much as I believe that Al Gore would sweep the tables in '08 (both in the primary an general)(but this is another topic).

Sorry for the rant, but the "we don't have the votes" mantra is spineless, weak, cowardly, and dare i say it, "Typically Democrat" in the eyes of the general public. "If they can't stand up to the Republicans, how can they stand up to Al Qaida?" Logically nonsensical, but a subconscious truth in the mind of joe sixpack from south-rural NC.

As a final point, I will cite a Newsweek poll from October 2006. It is horribly worded (surprise surprise), but there is one sentence that stands out:

but only 28 percent of all Americans say {impeaching Bush} should be {a top priority}, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done.

Ok do a little math: If 44% say "impeachment should not be done", then what are the other 56% saying?

Here I'll type slower and bigger for those of you who still think that public opinion trends AGAINST impeachment:

If 44% say "impeachment should not be done", then what are the other 56% saying?
or,
If "nearly half" say it should not be done, then OVER HALF are saying it should be done!

This was 8 months ago. Imagine what the number say now, if only the corporate media would have the courage to publish such a poll.

I'll say it again. I don't care if Bushco is acquitted by a spineless Senate. Let them acquit. The process of impeachment will lead to cheney-level approval ratings, or lower, and the truth of this administration's actions will be made clear, public, and writ large. And to me, that is more valuable than the technicality of whether he occupies the white house for x more months or not.

Democrats! Stand. The Fuck. Up.

Now.

Impeachment poll found via After Downing Street, "Newsweek Poll Shows Majority Supports Impeachment"

[yodermon]

1. .

[treestar]

2. Very true. Even the M$M will have a hard time spinning away all

of the evil that will be shown.

[Jackpine Radical]

21. Don't bet on it.

Lots of people still think WMD were found, Saddam attacked the WTC, and George Bush was appointed to power by JC Himself. Remember the Dean Scream, the million free reruns of the Swiftboat ads, the Rather/AWOL story, etc. Reality is whatever they want it to be. Impeachment is a very risky business.

(Caution: Ten minutes from now I'll be arguing the exact opposite.)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. kick

[Phredicles]

4. Unbelievably recommended!

Ask OJ how getting acquitted has been working out for him. And he was only charged with killing 2 people, not hundred of thousands.

[Toots]

5. Did you hear that Paris got out of jail?

And there was a professional wrestler found dead..You want people to pay attention to "politics" when all the hot juicy news is happening????:shrug:

[hfojvt]

10. that is a major trouble

the hearings will be shown entirely on some major networks (I don't remember how much of the hearings were shown on major M$M for Clinton. I didn't have a TV and didn't want to hear about that anyway.) but that is not how most people will hear about them. The major source of news will still be the RWNM branch of the M$M. People will get a five minute summary on ABC news et. al., or maybe 15 minutes, but it will be spun and analyzed more than it will be given straight.

[progressoid]

12. And Lindsey Lohan has decided to extend her stay in rehab!!11!!!

I'm beside myself.

[Initech]

6. Ding ding ding!!!

We need to get this information out in the open. If nothing else, just to show what these murderous criminal scumfucks have been able to get away with, and that alone might be enough to outrage the voters.

[yodermon]

11. The other thing that gets my goat is the lack of Polling!

That lone Newsweek poll from 8 months ago is the only mainstream poll on impeachment I've ever seen.

Oh except for the Clinton impeachment polling which started about as soon as he was inaugurated. :eyes:

[Initech]

18. That's because there is no liberal media.

The Republicans really need to stop playing this angle. It's not funny anymore. If there really were a liberal media, they would be screaming for impeachment.

[fooj]

7. Stand. The. Fuck. Up.

NOW!!!:bounce:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. I posted the same thing (but a lot shorter) yesterday!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1178673&mesg_id=1179477

[FloridaJudy]

9. Thought provoking

Recommended.

[Vidar]

13. I highly recommend your brilliant argument.

[dkofos]

14. Is the powder dry yet!!

[hvn_nbr_2]

15. And not only that...

If there's an impeachment trial, they'll have to spend time dealing with it and will therefore have less time available to do evil stuff.

[Maven]

16. You know the funny thing about impeachment

is that the Dems in Congress seem so entirely fond of symbolic gestures, what with their nonbinding this and no-confidence that. Hell, EVERY piece of progressive legislation they pass is basically a symbolic gesture since the imperial man-child will simply veto. Yet when it comes to the I-word, somehow the gesture isn't enough--we must be guaranteed success, otherwise we can't pursue it.

Curious, don't you think?

[Yukari Yakumo]

30. They prefer safe symbolic gestures.

Impeachment has every possibility to backfire, and can seriously bite the Dems on the ass.

Just not worth the risks.

[Maven]

61. No risk, no reward.

Obviously their current "play it safe" strategy is working wonders, at 23% approval.

[Duncan]

66. Exactly how could it backfire again?

Or are you sarcastically repeating a capitulatory talking point?

[Zhade]

95. You, why bother with upholding sworn vows to protect the Constitution?

We weren't really using it anyway. And as you're saying, the rule of law and accountability is optional.

:eyes:

[Scriptor Ignotus]

17. i don't even care if the Dems impeach

and nothing happens. at least we tried. at least 20 years from now we'd look like the ones trying to do the right thing.

[JPettus]

32. And if the failure produced also helped put the GOP back in charge?

Then 20 years from now you could look back and say, "I helped push the monumental screw-up that let them have control for another 8 years."

"Do something, even if it's wrong," is seldom the best course of action in the long run.

[madokie]

39. so just freezing up is the best thing to do

do something, even if its wrong, just do something. setting on our hands has us in a fix right now that I haven't heard any reasonable reason to continue doing the same. I'd gladly look back in twenty years and say we tried. Oh, I'm not afraid of failure.

[bluescribbler]

77. "Even a wrong idea is better than no idea."

"A wrong idea can lead to truth. A lack of ideas only leads to empty-headedness...or a career in politics." Li Kao, in Bridge of Birds, by Barry Hughart

[JPettus]

86. You think freezing up is what is going on?

Perhaps you aren't paying attention, or you assume that lack of impeachment means no action is being taken?

The two things that need to be done most: impeachment and withdrawal from Iraq, can't be accomplished. You can impeach but you can't remove, and impeachment can work against you. In the case of the latter, Bush is still commander-in-chief and wholly in charge of what happens to our troops once they are committed to battle. Note I didn't say "responsible" as the Chimp has never been responsible any day of his life. Bush has no concern about the safety and welfare of the troops and should funding be cut off entirely, he would still refuse to remove the troops on his own and the GOP in Congress will support him completely right now. That is changing.

What is going on right now is the same "death by a thousand cuts" that the Republicans used so effectively against Clinton to help turn the tide of public opinion against him. Right now, every thing the Bush Administration has done that even hints of unethical behavior is the subject of a Congressional investigation, which then reports over and over the details of the unethical behavior in every media that can be used.

It's slow, but it's effective, and believe me, every day the Republicans in Congress look at the new bad news coming out about Bush and their party and wish there was some way they could stop it. It won't allow the Democratic Congress to end the Iraq War immediately and it won't remove the Chimp and the Dick but there is definitely something going on that the Republicans can't defend against.

Yes, I would have loved to see Congress not blink on the funding bill. Sadly, they did, but the investigations in Justice and Gonzo continue, the investigations into Cheney's machinations continue, the investigation of vote caging in Florida now continues.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Where's The Basis For That Concern?

Why would you think it would put the dems back in charge?

It didn't cost the repubs majority of congress, it didn't cost them the WH, and the public DIDN'T want impeachment because they knew it was much ado about nothing.

Now, real crimes have been committed, and money's been stolen. So, there is some "there" there. The public knew that wasn't true about Clinton, and it still didn't cost the repubs by putting the dems back in charge.

So, what's the basis for your concern?
GAC

[DeeDeeNY]

53. Exactly correct.

The story being pushed by the so-called "consultants" is don't make waves or there'll be a backlash like there was with Clinton, and the Democrats are falling for this, even though the circumstances are totally different.

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Yeah, And There Was No Backlash Either

If there was no backlash when it was obviously something about nothing, why would there be a backlash due to enforcing the laws of the land?

Doesn't make sense to me.
GAC

[JPettus]

93. Ask Newt if there was no backlash

He lost his position as Speaker of the House after the Republicans lost seats in the midterms that they expected to win due to their shaming of the President and attempt to remove him from office.

[JPettus]

92. You bet the circumstances are different

They still control the media but they can't control the debate in Congress. They still get their spin out there to an apathetic, apolitical populace that mostly buys what it is told.

Last time they controlled the debate and the spin. Now they just control the spin. And so far, it's enough to keep Republicans supporting Bush and no large outcry to remove Bush and Chehey.

[JPettus]

87. Look at the post

Why would I be concerned that it would put the Republicans back in charge? Because when the GOP attempted to impeach Clinton, the public saw it as pure politics. The Republicans lost votes and seats in the next election after trying it. The Dems are very aware of that.

The GOP controlled the message and people didn't think it was important because they saw it as sex and something that should be private between man and wife, and not a matter of perjury.

In today's environment, the GOP still controls the message as much as they can, and if you think you can easily impeach (a process that the public already sees as pure politics) and win the PR battle and force the Republicans to vote to remove, you aren't paying a lot of attention to what is going on.

Republicans still support Bush, though not as much as they did before, but by nearly a 70% margin. Support for impeachment is barely 50% if that. You can't expect to accomplish anything with those kinds of numbers. You won't remove Bush and you simply show the mostly apolitical public that there really IS not a shred of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. At least, that's the way the corporate owned conservative MSM will spin the story and those majority who don't pay a lot of attention to politics will buy it, and they vote too.

The midterms were not a mandate on Impeachment or even Republican corruption. They were a mandate on Iraq. If you assume they were anything else, you are doomed to fail.

I've said it before and I will say it again. You can't get the votes to remove Bush if he were captured on video murdering Ted Kennedy on the floor of the Senate with an illegal assault weapon while simultaneously sexually assaulting a ten year old boy scout. The broadcast media outlets would brand it as a forgery, the Republicans in the Senate at the time would deny it happened and they would band together to stop removal. They owe their loyalty not to their constituents but to the National Party that helps them get re-elected.

Instead, you stop them by removing their vote suppression apparatus, their non-audit-capable electronic voting machines and jailing them for vote caging.

[redqueen]

64. Doing the right thing is the right thing.

Period.


Remember? Rule of law? All that sort of thing? Are you seriously saying we should look the other way while they continue wiping their collective bottoms with the BOR and the Constitution? Sweet Jesus.

[JPettus]

88. It's easy to be an idealist

The idealist conservatives were sure they could remove Clinton on a perjury charge stemming from an illegal perjury trap on a private matter that didn't relate to his duties as President.

The pragmatic view is that you need to have more control of the situation in order to have a chance of success. The idealist says "control be damned, it's the right thing to do, so let's go do it." I will posit that Clinton DID, technically, commit perjury, therefore voting to remove him was the "right thing to do." Yet, it was absolutely the wrong thing to do for the country. What the
Senate Democrats did was really nothing more than Jury nullification. Effective, but ethically the "wrong" thing to do.

The Republicans lost votes on the Clinton impeachment because they saw it as nothing more than pure politics. At this point in time, impeachment is considered nothing more than a political ploy to remove a President.

The Democrats are aware of the razor thin majority they have and that if they lose seats in the next election rather than winning them, we go back to a Republican majority. Then, what can we hope to accomplish? I want to keep control of Congress and get the White House and a veto-proof majority so we can reverse the Bush Administration on everything they have done, taxes, stem cell research, faith-based initiatives, habeaus corpus, Patriot Act, etc, etc, etc. I don't want to piss off an apolitical and unknowing majority that can be manipulated by the media into returning the GOP to control based upon the belief that there really isn't any difference between the parties.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

65. where do you get that "do something, even if it's wrong"?

that's not even close to my point of view. or are you quoting another poster? or just making stuff up?

I don't think impeachment is wrong. I think it's the right thing to do, however I realize it might not work. I do not foresee a backlash.

[JPettus]

89. Calm down

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If impeachment is the right thing to do but has the opposite effect you expect, is it still the right thing to do? You think that if it fails you don't have any consequences? EVERYTHING has potential consequences, and particularly in an environment where you don't control the media or the message.

Just because you don't foresee a backlash doesn't mean you won't get one. When Newt Gingrich pushed for impeachment he didn't see a backlash either. But he got one and then he was removed as Speaker.

Show me valid polls that indicate the public is 75-80% in favor of removing this President and then I may change my mind. Right now with Republicans still giving Bush a nearly 70% approval rating and every poll that mentions impeachment barely breaking 50% I think you are very wrong to assume there would be no backlash for it.

[Zhade]

94. So, don't uphold the law, unless we benefit from it?

Gee, now what political party does THAT stance remind me of?

[JPettus]

100. Ah semantics

Lets see. Under the current regime, the wealthy get even wealthier at the expense of the poor and lower middle class. Stem cell research to help the sick is squashed. More and more people have less and less insurance and pay more and more for their health care.

Do I need to go on?

Now, you think you will fix those by making an idealistic gesture to remove a President, criminal though he is, and end up losing seats and the majority over it?

Or, do you continue what you are doing, using an unpopular war to help you highlight the other crimes of the Bush administration and the people in it, giving them a death by 1000 cuts which they can't stop and use that to take down the Republican Party in the 2008 elections and put yourself in a position to actually do some good?

Lack of impeachment is not the same as doing nothing.

[Zhade]

101. And you wish to let them walk for political expediency.

That's so base a notion, I don't know how you could possibly sway me. The rule of law is not optional. Period.

[JPettus]

103. Get a clue

Impeachment won't lock them up. The criminals still walk under your plan, but potentially you let the criminals keep control of Congress as well.

Doesn't seem like any kind of a bargain to me.

[DeeDeeNY]

105. You asked for polls

Here's the problem -- no one is taking polls on impeachment. I wonder why.

[JPettus]

107. Here's the Solution

There are independent polling entities out there that will do that for a fee. I submit that the Democratic Party could commission such polls, and do them routinely (like every month or two for the next couple of months and see if there is a willingness to remove the President and/or VP.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. And how, exactly, could exposing GOP crimes increase their

power?

You think that 'The Sopranos" and 'The Godfather" are popular because everyone wants to emulate them?

If we impeach and win, we win. If we impeach and lose, we win.

Just what is the downside?

[JPettus]

90. Sadly, it's not that simple

You think you are going to expose their crimes in the impeachment trial? Pay attention to current events. The Democrats now are investigating everything that even has a whiff of Bush Admin corruption. They leak the information to the press daily. The Republicans desperately wish they could stem the tide of bad news.

Has it raised a major outcry from the populace to remove Bush and Cheney? No. If you have polls showing impeachment desires, you don't get much over 50% and right now Republicans still overwhelmingly support Bush, with a nearly 70% approval rating.

You don't control the media or the message, so what you THINK will happen when you start impeaching is really not likely to be what you see in the media, and sadly, the vast majority of people out there are sheep, led by their broadcast news, and their talking heads.

Remember that when the GOP attempted to impeach Clinton, they lost. They lost seats in the midterm they expected to win and Newt Gingrich lost his job as Speaker. The Dems don't have a big majority in Congress. They have a very weak majority, and it wouldn't take losing many seats to throw the power back to the GOP, and then the Dems are pretty much helpless to stop them from Steamrolling the Constitution and the Bill of Rights again.

Personally, I want to get us out of Iraq, and don't see any way that will happen with a GOP controlled Congress or a Republican in the White House.

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. There's a big difference here --

They the repukes attempted to impeach Clinton it was for blatantly partisan purposes and HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG. Where were the "high crimes and misdemeanors"? If they could pin ANYTHING on Clinton other than lying about a blowjob, and the results were the same I might agree - but everybody knew it was a trumped up witchhunt that, even if they'd been successful, would not have sent anyone to jail.

In this case there are clear violations of the law, of the constitution, of their oaths of office. Numerous repukes are already in jail, and others are headed there - this is NOT about a blowjob. This is about serious crimes.

The American public is not stupid. They know the difference between a blowjob inspired lie meant to salvage a bit of dignity and preserve a marriage, and violations of the 4th amendment and the Presidential oath of office.

How can you not see the difference?

[JPettus]

108. It's called perjury

And yes, I know that the charge wouldn't have stood up in a legal court, that the charge stemmed from a statement taken in an illegal perjury trap. But impeachment is NOT about the law. At least, it's never been used for legal purposes (though had Nixon not resigned, it might have come to that) but has always been used for partisan political purposes. In the textbook definition of perjury, Clinton was guilty, though the reasons for the charge were bogus.

You seem to be assuming that you can get your story out with minimum spin from Faux Noise and the Lords of Loud.

I'm not disputing that Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et all deserve to go to jail. I'm pointing out that impeachment will NOT send them to jail, but simply out of their current jobs and won't have any impact on sending them to jail afterwards.

I'm pointing out that it's not a slamdunk, either in getting your message out when you don't own the media or have an objective media. You may get some media outlets to cover the results of the investigations but most will drown it out with the latest Paris Hilton stories or spin it so that the Dems look like the bad guys.

And, I'm pointing out that you still likely will not be able to remove ANYONE via impeachment, since it's a sure bet that voting to remove one of your own will kill the Republican Party's chances of winning anything in the next election, and those guys will vote for themselves before they vote any conscience they may have.

Finally, I'm pointing out that just as surely as the Republicans were surprised by a public backlash against impeachment of Clinton, there could very easily be a backlash against the Democrats if they started impeachment proceedings.

Remember that the Dems promised no impeachment during the final stretch of the 2006 midterms. Remember that the results of the midterms was not a referendum on Bush per se, or Republican corruption per se but most especially on Iraq and interpreting the results to mean anything else is a stretch at best. Remember that the Republicans lost seats following their impeachment attempt. The public doesn't, as a rule get into the details, except for people like us that inhale this stuff. I don't expect them to get into the nitty gritty details of why impeachment takes place, since we will tell our side as best we can and the Republican spin machine will be telling theirs, mostly that it's a blatant power play to remove Bush and Cheney and take over the government. And people will believe them. What the average voter on the street (who isn't the most astute citizen up on their current events) will see is that the Dems promised that they weren't going to impeach and then they tried to impeach.

Unless you can show an overwhelming desire by the public to remove Bush and/or Cheney, attempting to remove them via impeachment is risky at best, and can result in a backlash that sweeps the Dems back out of power in 2008.

Then, how do we fix the crap that the Repugs screwed up?

You don't think the American public is stupid? How did Reagan get elected twice? How did Rove and Bush's dirty tricks knock out McCain from the race in 2000? How did they keep the race close enough for Bush to steal in 2000? Let's remember that the Clinton economy was the best since post WW II. Unemployment was down, crime was down, new homes being built were at all time highs, everything was going very good. How then, do the American people buy into the crap that they needed a Republican to "restore honor and dignity to the White House?" Especially in light of the corruption of the Reagan-Bush years, the poor economy, the constant deployments of troops (under Bush Sr). How did they overlook Bush's drinking problem, his poor handling of the environment, his poor economy as governor of Texas, his criminal past regarding insider trading?

I tend to heed the words of H.L. Mencken who said "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." Hence, they got Bush.

And that best quote: "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. A 'backlash' can only result from Congress doing what the people don't want -

the repukes went ahead with their impeachment with barely 30% of the public supporting them. It was obvious it was a set-up job. The public responded appropriately.

With better than 50% of the population favoring impeachment (approx. 78% of Dems, 54% of independents, 22% of Republicans) there will be no backlash. In fact, if Pelosi had not pre-emptively said it was off the table, there would be an even higher percentage of both dems and independents favoring it. And as real crimes, violations of the constitution, are revealed the % of republicans will increase as well. So who would this mythical backlash come from?

The only scenario that I can see would be massive intervention by Sequoia, ES&S and Diebold, who then blame it on 'backlash'. Fortunately, IF we impeach, we can reveal the massive fraud there, too, and eliminate that as a possibility -- if we don't it will be THEIR votes that count, not ours.

[JPettus]

110. Interesting assumption

You'll pardon me if I don't get on board with no backlash when you have BARELY 50% supporting impeachment. Get the numbers up closer to 70-75% and I will happily jump on the bandwagon.

Don't get me wrong, I want impeachment. I would love to see Bush and Cheney removed from office. But, do I think it's the practical option at this time? Nope. You can't remove, and Bush remaining in office might not be crippled any worse than he is now. On the other hand, surviving the attempt to remove him might give him more relevance to people, like it did Clinton. And while I am assured by the "fiery left" (to quote Joe Klein) that there would be no backlash, no one can say that with certainty. I would rather keep control of Congress, add seats and re-take the White House. Without those things you can't hope to roll back the crap the Bushies foisted on the American people.

If the Dems do what they need to do most (no, not impeachment) such as solving the "no-audit"
electronic voting issue, putting a stop to the Repug's voter suppression tactics, aggressively pursuing legislation to once again limit the amount of media outlets that can be controlled by one company and investigate, investigate and then investigate even more all the ethics violations of the Bush Administration you will get those numbers and be able to remove, and probably sooner than you think. Even if you don't impeach, you cripple Bush to the point where you increase the support for Congress against the Shrub and make him take the entire Republican Party down with him in Nov 2008. Hey, with a little luck and lots of persistence, it might be possible to send both Bush and Cheney to prison, which is an option you won't get with impeachment.

And, the investigations into the excesses and ethics/legal violations of the Bush Administration AND the permissive Republican Congress that allowed it to happen can continue on for another 2-4 years, complete with subpoenas, indictments and trials to drag the entire issue out and demonstrate the Republican corruption to the voters in a way that might prevent the corporate owned media from reversing any time soon, just like the Great Depression turned people away from the Republican Party for years.

[Zhade]

91. Yeah, because moral cowardice like yours has always made things better.

I find it appalling, the lack of ethics some of you have. Where I come from, criminals go to jail. You'd rather they go free than risk upholding the Constitution.

People like you are why this country is dying. You enable the most egregious crimes by sitting back and wringing your hands, as if accountability was optional.

[JPettus]

97. I don't know where you are from but it must not be the US

Is OJ Simpson in Jail?
Is Michael Jackson in jail?
Do you really think Phil Spector is going to Jail?

Haven't you figured out yet that, right or wrong, there is a difference justice for the wealthy and connected than there is for the poor and middle class?

How much jail time did George Bush do for his insider trading?

The streets are full of people who beat the system because they had money and influence and power.

What you call "moral cowardice" I call pragmatism, and I deal with reality. Idealists tend to live in their own fantasies. Since I have to live in the real world, I set my expectations (and my plans) accordingly.

[Zhade]

99. No, it's cowardice. You prefer to let criminals walk rather than risk holding them accountable.

I find you lacking in ethics. Thanks for helping bring down the country with your moral waffling on the rule of law, it's working so well.

Hint: people like b*s* didn't go to jail for insider trading because people with your mindset failed to uphold the law. You are their equivalent. You're not pragmatic, you're fast and loose with the applicability of justice.

Just because the system doesn't always work, that's no reason to advocate letting criminals walk in exchange for political expediency, as your utterly preposterous arguments posit.

[JPettus]

102. Someone needs to take a chill pill

First, you aren't "letting criminals walk" since impeachment is not going to send anyone to jail. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one, and the best you can hope for is that he is removed from office and doesn't get his pension. Your path won't keep criminals from walking, it just shames them a bit and removes them from office. And remember, criminal actions are still criminal actions. It's still possible to file criminal charges against them when they leave. In a real court. Where there is a chance you will get them put in jail. Oh wait, you really think that a Bush will go to jail?

Research Silverado Savings and Loan and see how much time Neil Bush did.

Second, not everyone who disagrees with you is lacking in ethics. What they are lacking is your absolutism and idealistic belief that only good things can come from doing what's right. In the real world, good samaritans get sued for trying to help someone and potentially making it worse.

And the reason Bush didn't go to jail for insider trading is that his daddy was a Congressman who had tons of power to quell the investigation by the SEC. That simply proves I'm right, not that you are.

[JPettus]

104. Well, I guess it's interesting to see that the extreme left is just like the extreme right

Perhaps next you will ask me why I hate America? ;-)

[Vincardog]

19. Too true say it again Democrats! Stand. The Fuck. Up. K & R

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Don't misunderestimate the power of the press to portray

any impeachment proceeding as a partisan witch hunt. They will ignore and distort the facts, give big play to Republican defensive lies, and just flay anybody who dares to seriously challenge the Imperial President.

[rucky]

25. and if we don't have the Congressional record...

the only record we'll have are newsclips from FOX - who bash and spin on a daily basis, no matter what.

[chknltl]

22. Proud to be the 29th recommendation

bookmarked :patriot:

[southerncrone]

23. K & R

:kick:
What do we have to loose? MSM will always side w/R's, even if "impeachment is off the table".
This is the only way we can get all of the nasty deeds this administration has perpetrated in a concise, widely-disseminated manner. It's the only way MSM will cover these scumbags & their vile deeds.....if they are FORCED to! Maybe THEN the light bulb will go on for average Joe AmuriKa.
:eyes:

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I am a PROUD Impeachment Hawk. I K&R this thread.

[Zhade]

98. Why are so many so intent on arguing that the rule of law is optional?

It's not. Why do these people think it is?

[JPettus]

26. Your statements are based on some assumptions

That might not be true.

You assume that the broadcast media favored by the majority of the populace will air the stories objectively and not try to spin them against you.

You assume that the majority of the populace will get the message you want them to get when you don't control enough of the media to control the message. You have to remember that truth is always subjective. The facts may not be, but the way they are spun and interpreted is.

You assume that a 50% majority in public opinion means anything to the Republicans in Congress, who owe more to big dollars from the National Party and short attention spans of the electorate than they do to the good will or concern of their constituents.

You assume that there would be a backlash from voters towards Republicans that support Bush and fail to vote to remove.

You assume that the voters won't see impeachment in general and impeachment of Bush in particular as a blatant political ploy to remove an unpopular President. Unpopular or not, Americans don't like political actions aimed at removing a President they see as fairly elected, and the majority doesn't see that Bush stole two elections to get where he is today.

Now, lets' look at the assumptions the Republicans had when they tried to remove Clinton:

They assumed that their control of the media would be enough to overcome popular opinion.
They assumed that their leaking embarrassing facts about Clinton's affairs would turn public opinion against him.
They assumed that the investigations would force Senate Democrats to feel they had to vote to remove Clinton for fear of reprisals during the next election.
They assumed that the populace wouldn't see impeachment as a blatant political ploy to remove a popular president.

What happened when the Republicans tried to impeach and remove Clinton? They lost seats in the next election and had a backlash from the voters on themselves. The Democratically controlled Congress is VERY aware of that and how the electorate views impeachment not as a tool to remove a corrupt President, but how it's been used by political parties to attempt to remove rivals.

I keep pointing out that recent history does NOT favor impeachment, regardless of the charges. You could have video of Bush murdering Teddy Kennedy on the floor of the Senate with an illegal assault weapon while simultaneously raping a ten year old boy scout and the Republicans would cry that the video was doctored (especially if they were present at the time it was filmed) and would refuse to vote to remove.

Impeachment is the nuclear option and Republicans know that voter backlash, as bad as it could be in 2008, would be even worse if they actually removed their own President. They would be guaranteed to lose both the White House plus a good percentage of what seats they still hold. Remember what happened to the Republicans and the backlash they had when Nixon resigned?

On the other hand, if they can distance themselves from Bush at the last minute, they might be able to hold onto their own seats when Bush goes down, in spite of the fact that they made his follies possible in the first place. Voters tend to be incredibly short sighted and have virtually no short term memory. That way, in spite of losing the White House, they may be able to keep enough seats in Congress to still be relevant and attempt to sway policy.

[GeorgeGist]

47. So, you are you afraid to be proven wrong.

SIT.THE.FUCK.DOWN.

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. "Impeachment is the nuclear option."

No. Impeachment is the recommended response to high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nixon had committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and rather drag the party down with him he resigned, and the losses the Republican suffered were nothing compared to what they would have been if he had been impeached.

While getting a blow job, then lying about it, might technically be a misdemeanor it is certainly no high crime, and it was a situation that probably half the adult population of the US could see themselves being in. The republicans pushed the issue, and made themselves look ridiculous in doing so. What that tells us is that the American public take the option of impeachment very seriously, that it is not something to be frivolously embarked upon.

The high crimes and misdemeanors of Bush and Cheney, which permeate their entire administration, are not frivolous charges and the American public recognise it. As noted elsewhere, if 44% of the nation is against impeachment then 56% agree that it is not unreasonable. It is a serious option, and should be considered seriously, whether it has any chance of conviction or not. Aquittal does not equal innocence, and the process of the impeachment trial would bring to the fore everything that has been hidden in the shadows for the past 6 years. In fact, there's a high probability that there would be revelations that even the most diligent Bushco watchers don't suspect.

At the least, it could force Bush and/or Cheney to pull a Nixon and resign, in a hope of mitigating the damage to the republican party. Why would we want to deny ourselves that option?

[AwakeAtLast]

27. I wholeheartedly agree

K and R!


:kick: :kick: :kick:

[bluestateboomer]

28. The Constitution Needs the Support of Impeachment

If that honored document is to stand for anything in the future, we have to at least put these abuses on trial. We may not get the conviction we want, but we will have exposed the lies and corruption.

[madokie]

40. and once the lies and corruption is on the table for all to see

we will have impeachment and removal. Americans for the most part don't like being lied to

[Senator]

29. Yes, "Acquitted" Is A Far Better Outcome Than "Unimpeached"

And we don't even have to go into the politics of it.

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime for torture/war crimes and more.

These things are currently ongoing "in the name of the American People."

This Must Not Stand.

The "mandate" of the 2006 elections was not for a result, but simply for a voicing of objection.

The public/electorate is not stupid. They/we understand that impeachment does not mean automatic removal. They/we simply want to be heard. To have their/our disapproval and condemnation formally recorded for history.

Only Impeachment ... can get the American People back on the record.

It would be the beginning of the Redemption of Our National Soul.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

-----

[Yukari Yakumo]

31. It is a talking point of an willfully ignorant mob

Attempts to impeach can and will backfire.

The 2006 elections was not a mandate. No election is ever a mandate.

It's sad to tell you, but the public in general is panicky, short-sighted, and stupid. They are not you. They understand little as to what impeachment means aside from what M$M tells them. And they seriously could care less what the history books say.

Do not mistake what you believe for what the public believes.

[Senator]

33. Sorry not to share your disdain for our fellow Americans

But I don't substitute my own beliefs for theirs. I take them at their word.

As the OP points out, only 44% opposed impeachment last year. And a majority wanted it as "a priority" for the Dem Congress:



A more recent poll showed 58% saying "they wish the Bush presidency were simply over."

As for the mandate of 2006, Curtis Gans, Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate made it clear what his research demonstrated:

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

The public/electorate seems to understand a great deal more than the "All About Iraq" mantra the Euphemedia foisted on them. It's hardly likely that they're going to suddenly reverse their opinions and rally to an impeached bushcheney.

But suppose there is some downside to impeaching -- some dreaded "backfire" waiting. Does this relieve our "leaders" from their sworn Constitutional duty to lodge impeachment charges that are clearly warranted?

Why does "our side" get to benefit from the ongoing torture?

--

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Senator]

71. That must be it

It's the "or somethin" in me that leads me not to value a "poll" by Gingrich cronies as highly as I do those sponsored by Newsweek.

But even that one puts impeachment support at a considerably high number when a total lack of leadership on the issue is taken into account. BTW, your poll doesn't break out independents, so you might be seeing things.

In the Newsweek poll, Independents support impeachment 53-44.

Therefore, it is failing to impeach that risks pissing them off and losing both chambers.

As recent polls very clearly demonstrate.

---

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. A lousy poll.

Note, it specifies Bush AND Cheney. If they were to be concurrently impeached and convicted it would leave the WH in Dem hands. That smacks a bit of 'coup-d'tat' even to me, and I strongly favor impeachment. That would certainly bother the independents. The implications are obvious and the American electorate is not so moronic as you seem to think.

If the poll specified just Bush, it might read much differently.

If we are talking about apples, please, don't bring up the subject of oranges.

[Martin Eden]

75. Are you BLIND or somethin?

Independents are 53% in favor of impeachment (top priority & lower priority combined) versus 44% against. 3% don't know.

[BikeWriter]

34. Hold someone accountable today!

[PBass]

35. Kicked and recommended...

If no attempt at impeachment is made, it will only embolden and encourage future presidents to blatantly ignore the rule of law, as well:

"But Bush did it too...!" I can just imagine the justifications people will use in the future!!!

If the Democratic leadership is holding back on impeachment strictly as a campaign strategy, that is irresponsible, crass and foolish, IMO. That is a deriliction of duty.

If an attempt is made at impeachment, and it fails, the impeachment attempt will still be part of Bush's record. It will still be remembered and it will act as a deterrent!!!

[madokie]

36. Lets get this impeachment started

fuck the we don't have the votes shit, I want to see the trial and the evidence layed out for the world to see then lets see if we have the votes, something tells me we will have more than enough once joe sixpack connects the dots after all those 'votes' want to keep their jobs or a lot of them do.

[Yukari Yakumo]

38. "I want to see the trial and the evidence layed out for the world to see"

Therein lies the problem.

What is "Exhibit A"?

[madokie]

43. any number of things from lying to lying

pick which lie you don't want to start with then use the other. the lose of thousands of innocent Iraqi's or are you going to say that what we, george bush* is doing to them is right. I'm interested to hear what you have to say on that because that will go a long ways in telling me what I need to hear from you. sorry

[Enthusiast]

41. The evidence will be overwhelming

The evidence for criminal wrong doing will be overwhelming. Unless that evidence has been entirely eliminated. I think there has been such abuse of power and so many criminal acts that they can't possibly have covered it all up. With no Congressional oversight it appears that Bushco has been a bit careless in hiding everything.

[madokie]

46. I think its not a matter of the evidence, the fact is there is so much

and I'll be called out here shortly as to provide it, and I'll say to them, PAY ATTENTION to whats going on if you're going to argue with me, anyways as you say there is so much evidence to put on the table I'm not sure there is a table large enough to lay it all on.

[Hubert Flottz]

42. "Doing the right thing, the right way, is just too hard!"

If you would have had an attitude like that on your job...how long would you have lasted?

The congress critters SWORE to uphold and defend the Constitution of The United Stated against ALL enemies...doing something goes with the friggin' territory!

What are WE THE PEOPLE...chopped freakin' liver?

[madokie]

44. I'm not but there are several here who are

:grr:

[Roland99]

45. EXACTLY!!!!!

[rosesaylavee]

49. Recommended.

My fear is we are experiencing a coup and will lose our country without an impeachment trial for these fascists.

I see no other option as viable at this point. We must take a stand for what is constitutional or lose it completely.

[frogcycle]

50. agreed

and a big chunk of those 44% will come around as the facts unfold

[madokie]

51. yes they will

[frogcycle]

52. the argument that "it might backfire"

is basically just throwing in the towel, saying "we're toast; they won"

That may well be true - and ee can take the appeasement route of Neville Chamberlain, or we can stand up and be counted.

But the one thing we should not for a moment believe is that NOT impeaching will result in the junta deciding to back off. They planned on a 100-year reign; the 2006 election is a minor bump in the road. They do NOT plan to go meekly to the 2008 elections saying 'gee, we fucked you over but please vote for us again anyway'. They can and will mount all sorts of disinformation campaigns to get those very uninformed, ignorant people disparaged above all riled up to vote for rudy, or fred, or whomever, steal enough votes to get over the top, and continue this travesty unchecked.

I agree that it must be done with a full ammo clip, but to say don't stick your head out of the foxhole is just to say 'I give up - BOHICA'

a carefully orchestrated impeachment trial with full exposure of all the crimes is probably our last hope to stop the juggernaut. If it backfires, well, then all it did was accelerate the inevitable. Because we would NOT win by playing their game, deluding ourselves that 'campaigning better' would have any effect whatsoever. Thinking that Gore was too wooden or Kerry too polite or whatever the self-flagellating complaints are is crap. They were the better candidate by far; disinformation and flat-out fraud is how the cabal got into and stayed in the oval office, and there is plenty more to come.

[zyguh]

58. Impeachment and pardons, OR no impeachment and they stand trial after 2008?

Impeachment starts, but we cant impeach both at the same time, cant POSSIBLY do it because each trial will take its own witnesses, etc.,etc. Which means that if Cheney goes first, Bush can pardon him , so if Impeached and removed from office he doesnt have to go to jail for anything, THEN appoint his vp replacement, and we cant go ahead and impeach Bush without filling the vp slot first because it will leave that whole line of succession void, and YES I know that Nancy would be next in line except she is from the party that didnt win the white house so that will be impossible toplay out and go ahead with impeachment UNTIL a REPUBLICAN vice president replacement is sworn into office after either Cheney is removed, OR Bush is removed and Cheney moves up.

So no matter what anyone might hope, Nancy will only become President if we file articles of Impeachment and it makes Cheney flip out, and take out * before doing himself in. Thats the only way.......impeachment will not put a democrat in office......which means that whoever goes first gets pardoned, followed by Fred Thompson being picked as the new VP, and then he pardons the other one after they are impeached.

And NO JUSTICE is ever done for any of the crimes they commit.

OR

Hearings are held every single day, that air all the dirty laundry that would have come out in an Impeachment trial anyway, and that leads right into the 2008 elections where Thanks to the efforts of the "impeachment now" crowd who finally realize how stupid they are being and all decided to start help getting the hearings information the proper exposure in the media instead of screaming for impeachment because they arent interested in actual justice but just want to even some score cuz "they got Clinton, heres some payback bitches" (or whatever the hell THATS all about).

The hearings expose all the corruption to the public, the OVERWHELMING tide of public opinion is such that its the most lopsided election in history, and the Democrats win 90% of all contested seats along with the White House.

We then have a 60+ seat majority in the Senate and House, and have the White House. At that point, Bush and Cheney's crime are completely exposed and they are ARRESTED and put on trial for war crimes. Every member of his administration is punished for their crimes, and they go to jail for the crimes they committed. Haliburtons assets are seized and the money Cheney was pillaging is returned.....Bush Poppy is even called to the carpet and forced to explain why he uses the daily presidential briefings (which all ex-presidents are entitled to receive) in his meetings with his Carlyle Consulting group, and why he was showing top secret information like that to his Saudi buddies, and to Bin Ladens family. The voting machine hacking information comes out and it is shown that both elections WERE in fact hacked, and that Bush never won either....which means that he had no authority to do anything so any law he signed is null and void, and anything he did as president is null and void INCLUDING appointing two supreme court justices. So the decisions made by that court is thrown out, those cases brought back before the court to be decided after the new democratic presidents two new justice appointies are rushed thru the democratic congress. Scalia is even investigated for NOT recusing himself from some of the Cheneny cases and when it comes out he makes assloads of cash from companies he ruled in favor of he resigns from the bench in disgrace rather than face forced removal and jail time, so we get a third nomination, and ..........

.............................................all this can come true............................

if the Impeach Now crowd would just shut up and stop thumping their chest because dammit! They impeached our president for nothing, so WERE GONNA GET US SOME PAYBACK. I dont even know if MOST of them realize that is a theme with them, but I have yet to hear a single impeach now person who doesnt bring up the Clinton Impeachment in the argument, at some point. I understand, the definition of TREASON is conspiring to overthrow the rightfully elected government........so the Republicans that all got together with Tripp and Star and conspired to get Clinton under oath for the express purpose of asking him if he had an affair because they knew they had evidence he did.....well, that was conspiring to overthrow the rightfully elected President so what would you call it? I get it, and Im right there with ya......but JUST impeaching these asshats is NOT ENOUGH, because if it goes down they will get the pardons and get off with no jail time or actuall justice for any of their crimes. Whoever goes first will get pardoned by the other, then the replacment pardons the last one.

So, you know, at least think it over. Do you really want impeachment or do you want JUSTICE? Do you really, when it comes right down to it, just want to get them back for Clinton? Dont you want to see the criminals go to jail?

If you do want to see all the criminals go to jail, then maybe you should rethink the timing on the impeachment thing. Just support every hearing and get as much of that information out in the media as possible. Im just pointing out that if you impeach, and win, thats ALL YOU GET. To fire them. because pardons will happen for "any crimes they may have committed". If you dont Impeach and instead let them think they get to sneak of to Dubai with all their money to the new Kingdom of Haliburton's world headquarters, well......we can get em all and try them all and see them all rot in jail forever.

[Ernest Partridge]

67. Don't forget The Hague.

Assume the worst about Presidential pardons: All the culprits get a "Get out of Jail" card: Bush pardons Cheney, appointed VP then Pres. Thompson pardons Bush.

Remember this: The International Criminal Court in the Hague does not recognize US Presidential Pardons, and both Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes. Condi and Rummy too.

Also, pardoning Bush & Cheney etc. will not sit well with the public. Remember what happened to Gerry Ford after he pardoned Nixon.

[frogcycle]

85. you say "are guilty" like you can prove it

in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. I'm impressed. but I would not bet the farm.


and they don't give a rat's ass about the public and how it sits with them.

[frogcycle]

84. you paint a nice scenario

and I like it - except I don't know that all the hearings and subpoenas will result in your 90% majority - I am more inclined to expect a national emergency requiring suspension of the constitution and cancelling of the elections...

but i 'm just a paranoid nutcase

by the way, i don't believe I said a damned thing about Clinton or "payback" - last thing in my mind. All I want is restoration of our Constitutional form of government. Holding them pinned down until they are out of office is an option, but they are then on the inside and the closer the investigations get the greater the liklihood of something drastic

anyway, your scenario would be good, but flaming the "impeachment now crowd" is no way to gain credibility. You could have posted it all with out the attacks.

Oh, and welcome to DU

[Norrin Radd]

54. k+r

[Usrename]

55. yep, now you're on the right track..

the evidence against them is overwhelming.. a conviction should be the foregone conclusion

[ejbr]

57. Eggfuckingzactly!!

I agree with Joe sixpack! If they can't stand up to the republicans, then how will they stand up to al qaida? "Well, the polls say that we should not profile muslims, so even though we have irrefutable knowledge that a muslim is going to blow up a plane today, we won't ensure that we give muslims extra scrutiny today because we want to keep our jobs at the expense of American lives."

Just like Iraq War funding, just like defending the constitution. Weak-kneed Dems have lost their way. I am not sure I am going to wait the umpteen many years until they get a fucking clue and DO WHAT IS RIGHT!

[KharmaTrain]

59. Hair Helmet '74 & Hair Helmet '98 & Hair Helmet '07

In '74, Trentt Lott as a member of the House Judiciary Committee felt Nixon did no wrong. Not on Obstruction or Abuse of Power or Tax Evasion. If anything he was one of Big Dick's biggest defenders.

In '99, Lott voted to convict Clinton for lying in the discovery of a civil suit (that was held as frivelous). This he felt was worthy of overturning the results of the '96 election and uprooting the Executive.

Now which Trent Lott will show up if Impeachment moves to the Senate in '07 or '08? Hmmm?

I can click off 18 Repugnicans right now that will never vote to convict no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. I wish I were wrong about it, but the partisan nature of this process all but makes this a loyalty test rather than a finding of facts.

Sorry...an acquittal by a spineless Senate would be played by the corporate media as a "devestating loss" among Democrats...and be assured there will be those within the Democratic party that will exploit this. Look at how pissed people got here about the failed supplemental last month...a failed impeachment will turn this place into a Necropolis. And you want this right before the '08 elections?

[yodermon]

73. Will all the evidence that would come out of an impeachment trial just be IGNORED?

Granted the corp. media cartel will try to ignore it, but if the following facts got their fair air time on live national TV, would the public be so forgiving of acquitting Republicon senators?

* Lying us into war: downing street minutes, Niger forgeries, Office of Special Plans, WHIG, Curveball -- this is bread & butter to the DU & lefty blogger crowd, but joe six pack has NO CLUE about these things. Bring them out into the open via an outlet OTHER than the media cartel -- live impeachment proceedings.

* Valerie Plame -- Fitz has left significant bread crumbs to follow straight to the white house (or at least to dick) if the Dems would just DO it already. Guess what: Victoria flaming Toensig doesn't get to spew her vile filth during impeachment proceedings.

* Warrantless wiretapping -- The public has been hopelessly misled about this issue thanks to the Cartel (they've made the argument seem to be about the "wiretapping" aspect instead of the "warrantless" part) -- but impeachment hearings would allow these things to be fleshed out, bringing in the rulings of various federal judges as to its illegality (which the cartel has heretofore glossed over)

* suspension of habeus corpus, authorization of torture & other violations of geneva conventions, extraordinary renditions, indefinite incarceration of American Citizens without charge

* obstruction of justice by firing us attorneys who were investigating republicons and hiring those who promised not to.
ET CETERA.

ALL these things, if given their full hearing, will piss off the average American to no end. The cartel has been spinning like mad for 6.5 years to keep these things under wraps (or at least "insignificant"), and in my view, the best (only?) way to actually get the truth out to the public is with congressional impeachment hearings. The media cartel will then be on the defense when spinning, instead of being the first point of contact with the public about these issues.

The only problem would be if the media truly and completely just ignores the impeachment proceedings, and reports on them as if they were just another run of the mill congressional hearing, boring, nothing to see here, move along, been there/done that with clinton anyway. If missing-white-girl-of-the-day stories get top billing on the evening news on the day that it's revealed that (e.g) Bush personally attempted to plant fake WMDs in Iraq, then yes, I would admit we have a problem. Also if the hearings are NOT carried on live daytime television.

[Independent_Liberal]

79. But nobody ever brings this up...

All the Republicans in the House and Senate who are under investigation in the Abramoff and Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate scandals. The Dems having the oversight and investigative power in all the oversight committees (and the ethics committees of the House and Senate) means we not only have the power to find many guilty parties in the White House and other levels of the executive branch, but ALSO many guilty parties in the House, Senate and maybe the judicial branch as well. Means we can find who was covering up for who, who all was complicit in which crime, who was involved in which shady dealings or bribery, etc. Once that information becomes public and it's shown how it was the Republican Senators who kept constantly obstructing any oversight of the crimes while they were in power (we may even also uncover those secret GOP/CIA drug running networks with serious ties to the Military Industrial Complex, the oil industry, mobsters, and middle eastern terrorists), people can threaten their Reps and Senators with civil RICO (Racketeering) suits. Once it becomes imminent to the Repubs that their careers are on the line and they could possibly be facing criminal charges, they'll want to go ahead and vote with the Dems on impeachment as sort of a plea bargain.

I think this is something people need to think about.

[Marnieworld]

60. Absofuckinglutely!

It's about putting it all out in the open, in the record for the American people. It's about getting the Country back to the rule of law. The American people will convict if given the evidence regardless of what the GOP calculate their choice should be.

[Joe Chi Minh]

62. I'd like to see them impeached, anyway, BUT, it's even more important, imo,

that they be crushed by the Law's retribution - where all these investigations are leading, I hope.

You all know how the Watergate felons have been seamlessly rehabilitated and re-integrated into their criminal society and culture. Do you think it would be a good idea for the same thing to be allowed to happen again? I don't think your Democratic leaders do, and I'm with them on that 100%.

[redqueen]

63. Yes... I've wondered why this idea hasn't caught on.

I'm getting more cynical by the MINUTE now. x(

[LSK]

68. as the originator of the other thread that inspired this one, I say thank you

I created the other thread to create a conversation on what could happen during an Impeachment process and what could happen if conviction failed. Most of the threads on DU are "Impeach now or you are a gutless coward" but there is a definate lacking in substance and analysis on what could happen during an Impeachment process.

I thank you for actually thinking of what can happen and making a case on why Impeachment should happen based on reason and some facts.

[Gold Metal Flake]

72. Stand. The. Fuck. Up.

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

Cowards, please run along and :hide:. Patriots need to water the tree of Liberty.

[rjhill2]

76. Well said!! Democrats: Stand up or Shut up!!!

I'm sick and tired of politics as usual. This country is ripe for revolution!

[ooglymoogly]

78. Just voicing my vote to impeach because it is the just, honoable

and right thing to do on so many levels it boggles the mind. Mainly this must be done to retrieve the soul of this country and honor this what is now sacred document, the constitution...I believe or would like to believe that the progressive dems in congress know exactly all the things mentioned here in some of the very smart posts and I for one for a few short minutes will give them the benefit of the doubt until the time is ripe (like now) for impeachment and I believe they are better equipped to do this. They have many facts that we don't. Yet there must be a time limit on this action and the forbearance of this action and it must be done soon or my views will change as will many others. A country can only exist without a soul, if at all, for a very short time before it becomes irretrievable. Articles of impeachment will gain some of that soul back whether we are successful or not and I cannot see the downside as many posters have noted....what if our founding fathers or many of the other brave souls who built this great country risking death had been so timid...this country would not now exist. We are in mortal danger and impeachment articles would tamp down much of that danger. One thing seems clear to me that if we pursue this without understanding the mortal danger we and this county are in or do not exhaust every avenue open to us, would be a fools errand. Plainly the Constitution is the soul of this country and it is being shredded before our eyes.

[aquart]

80. I like the way you think.

But the problem is, you reason rationally. Our federal legislators gave that up about six or so years ago. I'm not sure reason can reach them at all.

But I LIKE your approach. Me, I'd run with it.

[gasperc]

81. good point, wrath of the '08 voters

conventional wisdom is that the wrath will backfire on the DEMS but when the truth gets out, the wrath will be on the GOP. Agreed, DEM reps stand up, we got your back.

[EV_Ares]

82. I second that on the Dems To Stand the fuck up. Tired of the caving

in all the time. Tired of the threats and no follow-up.

What else does this administration have to do for them to move on it.

Same thing with the oil companies, they bring them in the execs laugh at them and go on their merry old way.

The Exxon exec I think even said at the last hearing, you will probably call us in again.

I keep hoping.

[Divine Discontent]

83. Acquittal might not be so bad if they brought up impeachment proceedings

I agree, sometimes they just don't seem to think the same way the people do - if all their SHIT is brought out to where the MSM has to show some of it, people will be sickened if their RW senator backs the Bushistas!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top 08 designs!

[Zhade]

96. I fail to understand how honest decent human beings here can argue such cowardice.

They're actually arguing that the rule of law is optional.

And people wonder if America is broken.

"If."

With people like these, it sure won't be fixed.