Arguments for impeachment

[Lerkfish]

hopefully, a rational discussion thread.

I'll start. I posted this within another thread:

I do not believe success of impeachment is the only litmus for pursuing it. The very reasons you state for why you think it will not succeed are exactly the reasons why it should be pursued: because the president is acting above the law with impugnity. Is it right to say that once he has grabbed absolute power illegally, we should not try to stop him? In other words, the very nature of the crime protects the criminal?

I believe there is a sworn duty to impeach if impeachable offenses have occurred. No ifs, ands or buts. Its a SWORN duty to uphold the constitution.

Just as I would not consider a prosecutor right to not bring rapists to trial because conviction percentages are traditionally low...I think a good prosecutor worries about whether a crime has been committed and his DUTY to prosecute that crime. Sure, a rape trial has a low chance of conviction, but rapists never brought to trial are automatically not convicted, 100%, and additionally, they are simply emboldened to continue raping victims.

[AndyA]

1. I want Congress to take actions because they are the RIGHT THING TO DO.

Not necessarily politically expedient.

Not necessarily the best thing for the party.

But the right thing to do to uphold their oath of office, protect the Constitution, and look after the best interests of the PEOPLE of the United States of America, not the corporations.

That is all. No biggie, really. I don't see why they can't see it. :shrug:

[Lerkfish]

2. not sure...are viewing their party above their country?

isn't that the same problem we have with the republicans?

[LiberalEsto]

3. Can a president be impeached twice?

Say the first effort fails. Can Congress try again?

[Lerkfish]

5. That's a good question

i don't know the answer. I believe no, but that's just an opinion.

[Poiuyt]

27. Another question...Can he be impeached if he is censured first?

Russ Feingold is pushing for censure.

[Lerkfish]

35. that is a good question. any constitutional scholars out there?

[bejammin075]

53. Of course he can still be impeached

Censure has no consequences, whatsoever. It's a meaningless vote, with no binding authority.

Politically, it could either help or hurt the chances of Impeachment.

On the one hand, the Republicans might rally to block it with cloture, claiming the Dems are wasting time with meaningless votes (I'd sort of agree). They could vote "No" on cloture, avoid the actual vote, and it would give the appearance of unified Repubs, which would dishearten those looking to count up 17 "R" Senators.

Alternatively, if the cloture was passed, and they actually voted on the real Censure motion, the Dems could eek out a majority, pat them selves on the back, and move on, as if they accomplished something and they'd want to get back to "getting stuff done" (sending bills for Bush to veto).

Or, the Censure, and talk about it, could increase the "Impeachment" chatter. The frustration & Impeachment blue balls could cause the pro-impeachment folks to increase their efforts.

Overall, Censure probably slightly hurts Impeachment, but has no binding effect.

I am not ready to surrender the Constitution. It's Impeachment or Bust.

[Poiuyt]

58. I guess what I should have asked was if Congress would be satisfied with

censure. If they censured Bush, would that be it? Or would they have the political will to continue and finish the job?

Knowing these Dems, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

[jgraz]

45. Yes. They can have a trial for each one of his crimes

Considering he's admitted to thousands of felony violations of the FISA law, they've got more than enough material to work with.

[LiberalEsto]

47. yahoo!

Wouldn't that be fun?

[cascadiance]

49. Not sure about "impeachment double jeopardy", but that doesn't stop criminal prosecution later...

... once he's out of office. Even if an impeachment fails, we can still nail him out of office, provided of course that noone pardons him.

I still think that in addition to working for impeachment, we need to work on legislation/constitutional ammendment to restrict pardons!

Make it so that a sitting president can't pardon any of those individuals in his administration (of those that he appoints like US Prosecutors, etc.), nor could they pardon the previous administrations officials (aka Gerald Ford's Nixon pardon). That would hopefully make pardons what they were originally intended to be. A way to provide justice for random citizens that perhaps deserve better clemency than what the justice system provided, instead of enabling a revolving door for a cadre of criminals that take over governmental powers.

I would like to think that this could be sold as a good thing to Republicans too, who have to realize that provided we have a next election (if Bush isn't going to try and cancel it and they aren't convinced that in so doing that they will be protected), that having this sort of pardon ammendment would also serve to protect them from the chance of the Democrats getting too powerful and trying to use pardons in a similar fashion.

[bobbolink]

4. K&R for the sake of our nation.

Thank you, Lerkfish.

:applause:

[Lerkfish]

6. anything for you, bobbolink

:)

[bobbolink]

7. *Anything*?? ^_^

If you could/would, please K&R this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1419362&mesg_id=1419362

I would be very grateful, and thanks.

Housing for All, and Impeachment for the bastards!!

[Lerkfish]

8. done!

[bobbolink]

9. You're terrific!!

:bounce:

Now, back to the business at hand---

Impeach the bastards!

Have you posted the issues that Conyers drew up lo, those many years ago?

[Lerkfish]

10. no, do you have them? if so, could you post them in this thread?

[bobbolink]

13. I've lost everything, including my computer, where all was stored.

I'll try to look it up on his site, unless he's erased all the evidence of his former self.

:(

[mmonk]

11. I couldn't agree more.

How much more can we take of wrongdoing before enough finally becomes enough. You don't stop doing the right thing by the country and constitution because you wonder how people will take it.

[bryant69]

12. That is a strong argument -

Probably one of the strongest; the problem is that the founders created an impeachment process which is both a political and a judicial process; on the judicial side there's no question you are right; impeachment should start immediately - hell should have started a few years ago.

On the political side, there's little question in my mind that Conyers and Pelosi and others are right; Impeachment isn't going to actually accomplish very much other than making Democrats look even weaker than they already are.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

14. good post. I do wonder, though about the political side

If they truly think impeachment won't accomplish much, then why waste time on censures and nonbinding resolutions? Are they accomplishing very much? yet they spent a great deal of time on them.

[bryant69]

15. Not nearly as much as impeachment would

I admit they are largely symbolic gestures, but they are affordable symbolic gestures, particular as even these symbolic slaps on the wrist are halted by Republicans in Congress.

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

17. ok, but we're back again in the loop where political expediency trumps judicial responsibility

Your previous argument is that impeachment is both, judicial and political.
Ok, but why is the judicial half NEVER used, and the political half ALWAYS used?

[bryant69]

19. Because we lack the political power and the political will to make impeachment

work. In an ideal world the crimes of President Bush would force a judicial response from Congress (well, i guess in a perfect world he wouldn't be around at all (or at least in washington - he'd be happily chopping wood in crawford)). As it is, you have to work out what we can afford to do, and what will be the most effective; for some that seems to be impeachment, for me and Congressional Leadership, it's not there yet.

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

21. well, that's a good point: "political will"

We have a deficit in political will.

and you know what, that's what us who support impeachment are trying to implant in the leadership, the political will to do the right thing.
The problem? we keep getting cut off at the knees by our compadres, who keep telling us it can't happen.

its like an endless concentric circle: we don't have the will, and we won't allow you to mobilize the will because it won't happen due to our lack of political will.

this is where the repubs have us, I'm afraid: they never lack political will. True, they're evil turds, but they never lack political will.

[bryant69]

24. Well it depends on what sort of methods you favor for implanting that will

Because the methods I see being used currently are more attacks and attempts at intimidation; which I can't in good conscience support.

Bryant

[bejammin075]

54. Or, we could lose the rule of law, become ruled by men

And end up totally fucked for not taking a stand, like the Good Germans of the 1930s. They had their chance and blew it. With the information age, and the people-power it enables, we really don't have any excuse for not doing what it takes to inform our fellow Americans of the crimes of the Bush administration.

Have you ever heard anybody say it's a good idea to lie to start botched wars over there, while taking away freedom and democracy over here?

The main obstacle is that not enough Americans are on the same page. If we really try, we can get more Americans on board with us. Nobody likes getting lied into a war - they just don't know that they were, or they are not that sure about it.

To succeed at being anti-war enough to stop an actual war and bring people to account, you have to fight hard enough as if you were at war. If we kick it up a few knotches, we win.

[cynatnite]

16. A good responsible prosecutor would do that...

but if the rapist is his boss who helped get him the job and when the prosecutor is so afraid of losing it that he's willing to let his rapist boss off, then the justice system grinds to a halt.

In other words, we need repuke votes to make impeachment happen, but we don't have them because repukes put party before country.

[Lerkfish]

18. but wouldn't we be putting party before country if we took it off the table, worried

about political repercussions?

not really sure that is any better, the end result is the same whether democrats are in the majority or the minority, the republicans still control the issue, because political concerns trump judicial duty.

this is going back to the same argument that ultimate verdict success is the ONLY litmus test for prosecuting crimes.

so, that means that it doesn't matter whether the crimes have been committed, it doesn't matter whether republicans game the system from within, it doesn't matter if democrats have the majority, impeachment will never happen, because it requires a committment to take responsibility, and no one is willing to do that?

[cynatnite]

20. If they know they can't get the votes to make it happen...

why pursue it? Sure, I know that it is the moral thing to do, but I also recognize even if they had the votes to impeach in the house, it doesn't mean bush loses his job. They need two thirds in the senate to convict and there is a better chance of ending the war than getting fifteen repukes willing to force bush out of office.

Personally, I prefer them to work to end the war since I don't believe impeachment is a viable option.

Either way, when you have people who care more about themselves than what's right, justice will fail.

[walldude]

23. Why pursue it?

Because we owe. We owe it to the Iraqi people. We owe it to the soldiers who are dodging bullets on a daily basis, while the politicians tell them if they just sit around for another year and a half, then we'll get to work doing something to get them out of there. We owe it to the people of the world who used to look to us for examples.

A better chance of ending the war? After all thats happened, after the vetoes, the statements, the threats, the name calling, the "give us 6 more months", and after yesterday's statements by the Generals on the ground saying what we need is more time and more troops you really think they have any intention of ending this war? Impeachment probably won't work either but we'll never know if we don't try. We already know trying to end the war isn't working.

If people weren't dying every day I could see how this might be an iffy issue but I for the life of me can't understand the mind a person not willing to do whatever it takes to save lives. Even is it is as Otter said in Animal House, "A really stupid and futile gesture".

[cynatnite]

25. It will fail...

no matter the right of it, impeachment will fail. The votes aren't there. Bush will not be thrown out of office. I really don't get why more people don't understand that.

We can state logically why impeachment is necessary and have all the evidence in the world, but it doesn't change facts. There might be a chance of getting the votes in the house, but there is no reasonable way to get two thirds in the senate because you will not find fifteen repukes who would be willing to vote for throwing bush out of office.

The reason the repuke votes are not there is because they put party over country. They put party over people's lives. The chances of them breaking from bush on the war is a little better than getting him impeached.

IMO, the only way to end the war and to start bringing the troops home is by defunding the war because I don't believe the repukes will change their positions no matter the will of the American people.

[walldude]

28. Yes it will probably fail. So we just shouldn't try?

Maybe I should teach that to my children. "Never try to achieve the impossible, it's a waste of time".

BTW if you think the Dems have the balls to de fund the war you are kidding yourself. All they want to do is wait till 2008. Look I understand your logic, and it is logical, and I respect what you are saying, but personally with people dying while I am debating I can't take a side that won't help get them home. Dems have already proven that they will not do what it takes to end the war, even if Impeachment is totally futile, at least I could look in the eyes of a soldier or an Iraq civilian and say "we tried"

[Lerkfish]

29. not trying is a 100% chance of failure

trying is a better chance, no matter what it is.

[cynatnite]

30. Impeaching will not end the war...

I don't tell my kids to leap over the moon because it's impossible and they couldn't do it no matter how much their heart is in it. I'd prefer them to use logic and weigh their options. I'd prefer them to take a look at reality at what is possible in the world we all live in.

Impeachment will fail and it's not a silver bullet that will solve this country's problems. I'd rather we do the thing that has a better chance of success. Ending the war has a slightly better chance than impeachment, IMO.

[walldude]

31. Lol, I don't tell my kids not to jump over the moon because

the next day they will be in the back yard building a freaking rocket ship just to prove me wrong. Impeaching will not end the wart but it will end the reign of the people blocking the end of the war. We seek the same end, hopefully one of us will end up right and the war will end either through Congress, or Impeachment. Not holding my breath though...

Leaving for a few days, stay safe and hopefully soon, we'll be debating on the best and safest way to get the troops home.

[cynatnite]

32. and my son would join your kids in doing that...

:)

Take care.

[Lerkfish]

36. actually, I think the chances of forcing *co to end the war without impeachment

are even longer odds. I think nothing short of impeachment will prevent them from this war and the next one with Iran.

[cynatnite]

40. Impeachment won't end the war...

which is the hopes of a lot of people here. The more I think about this, defunding the war and other options, we seem to be only left with waiting until the 08 elections.

I read that bush could be impeached when he's out of office, too. For what that's worth, I think it's a good option, too. Might actually get the chimp behind bars.

[Lerkfish]

42. that's an interesting thought. I thought impeachment only referred to removal from office

once out of office, they can be merely charged with crimes.

however, as time goes on, I am further convinced absolutely nothing, short of removal from office, will stop these war criminals. Anything short of that is doomed to failure anyway. So, if any action is doomed to failure, why not go for the most proper one?

[cynatnite]

44. I thought so, too, until I read this:

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

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

[Breeze54]

50. Please elaborate! Explain how they do that!

"Ending the war has a slightly better chance than impeachment, IMO."
- cynatnite -

snip-->

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/06/con06251.html">Ten Reasons To Impeach the President -- And One Reason Why Democratic Leaders Are Wrong To Be Afraid To Do It

"the president has already claimed that he has the power to violate and ignore 750 acts and laws
passed by a Congress led by his own party. Before the Democrats can count on a single bill of theirs
becoming the law of the land, they will have to remove this usurper from office."

[cynatnite]

52. Well, they are keeping the pressure on about the Iraq war...

from what I've seen. IMO, the dems know the repukes won't vote for impeachment and conviction no matter what. I think the dems also believe they have a better chance at ending the war since that's the issue that got them the majority. The dems weren't elected on impeachment...it was in the hopes of ending the war. That's why I think they opted to go the route they're going now.

[Breeze54]

55. And why is that? Who's keeping the pressure on them?

They aren't all doing it out of their own volution (sp?)
because we know that only 21 of them voted against the IWR!

So, Who's putting the pressure on them to do something?

Could it be people like, the IVAW and CS and the Gold Star Mothers for Peace and the MFSO?

You know, also known as anti war activists! Ya think?

[KharmaTrain]

22. Whose Saying Not Pursue It?

Honestly, I go through and participate in a lot of these threads and I don't see people here saying that Impeachment shouldn't be pursued. I can only speak for myself, but I have read from others who think along my lines, that you don't need to sell me on the importance and reasons to impeach. I've been there since the day our first troops stepped across the Kuwait/Iraq border...and I personally won't be satisfied with a simple impeachment...I want criminal indictments and convictions. I want an international tribunal held at the World Court in the Hague.

I wish we could get beyond the all or nothing view some have here as to those who question the tactics being employed and the rigid position many take with little regard to what really can or could happen. It's also a byproduct of the cheapening of what Impeachment was all about and how unsucessful it's been in the past.

Now the same people who are sworn to uphold the Constitution...and yes, impeachment is needed one way or another to set the record straight for the future, but right now, it's a tactic (and yes, tactic) that won't affect the most important change a vast majority of us agree needs to be done...putting the brakes on the on-going abuses of this regime by keeping it on the defensive...issuing Inherent contempt warrants for those who stonewall investigations that will lead to a firm and solid impeachment...and to defund this war for profit by any and all means possible...putting the pressure on those who obstruct the real will of a majority of the American people.

Impeaching doesn't end this war one day sooner nor prevents one more soldier from needlessly dying...if it could, then it's be our sworn duty to press for it...but right now our duty is to pressure the Senate to force boooshie to veto the upcoming defense appropriation and suck the money out of his war.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

26. There was a great post yesterday about Abu Ghraib

Either Bush/Cheney allowed it or they ordered it. Either way, they are culpable. I don't need a single other thing to hang them for, though there are many, many, many more.

Remember the outrage here over the torture when it came to light? Where did that go? I worked my ass off to get Bush out in 2004 (not on the internet, on the streets, in Ohio, halfway across the country), and again to take back Congress last year (again, at the polls, not on the keyboard), and now what? Where's the outrage? Stuffed into little twisted arguments about who speaks for those of us who are STILL outraged: dead heroes, live grieving mothers, or clearly conflicted Congressmembers? Who speaks for us? I don't know, all I know is I SPEAK FOR ME, and I say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I'm with you, there's a sworn duty to impeach if crimes have been committed. Thanks for a great reasonable post in the midst of some petty emotional madness here today.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

33. k&r, by the way

Forgot to recommend when I posted.

[Lerkfish]

34. thanks!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. There Is No Such Sworn Duty To Impeach. It Does Not Exist.

You may want it to exist or wish the founding fathers had in fact created such a sworn duty, but that does not alter the quite simple reality that such a mandatory duty does not exist whatsoever.

Wish for it all you want. Claim it as much as you want. Put it forth with as much personal conviction as you want. It still does not exist.

Your problem here is that you are putting forth your opinion on the subject while doing so in a way to show how deep your opinion is and how strong of a belief you have on the issue. What you fail to realize is that no matter how strong, passionate, emotional or deep an opinion is, it still cannot rise to a level greater than that which is fact. And whether you like it or not, it is a fact that there is no such sworn duty to impeach.

Your analogy also contains some tragic flaws in its logic and I find it a bit silly that you think you can compare a prosecutor handling a rape case within domestic law to the concept of impeachment within politics. Apples to oranges pal. Apples to oranges.

[Lerkfish]

38. do you believe impeachable offenses have NOT occurred?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. I Believe Undoubtedly That They Have.

But if the equation boiled down to something so simplistic and narrow in concept, we wouldn't even need to be having a debate.

[Lerkfish]

41. some truths are deceptively simple

criminals should be prosecuted...that sort of thing.

freedom is a good thing.


some of the better truths are simple.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. And Some Processes Are Not.

Like I said: If this topic was something that could be boiled down to such a simplistic and monofaceted equation, we wouldn't even need to be discussing it.

But that ain't reality. Reality matters. In reality, there are many, many tangents to this premise.

In a perfect world bush and cheney would never have been in power to begin with. In an almost perfect world, had they have been anyway they would've been locked up years ago. But I don't live in a world of rainbows and lollipops. I live in a world in which objectivity and circumstances matter, not idealistic feel good rhetoric.

[Lerkfish]

46. after today, I would NEVER accuse you of "idealistic feel good rhetoric"

so, no worries there.

:wave:

[checks-n-balances]

51. So, tell us, what's the alternative? To ride out their term? Do nothing?

Wait until a "national catastrophe" happens and we're under martial law? What can we do then?

We don't KNOW whether we can succeed unless we try.

When leaders not only do not "defend the Constitution" but are trampling on it by committing their crimes against it and against its citizens and people of other lands, wouldn't you say that the way to salvage not just our government but our whole society would be to go after those who are committing the crimes? Don't you think people would be appalled to finally learn the truth about what they have done?

IMO, doing nothing means letting them take over and destroy us as a people, to take over our lives and change this country forever.

[bettyellen]

56. the Duty is to Uphold the Constitution. And they are Refusing to Do So for Political Reasons.

Shame on Them. Politics Sucks.

[Uncle Joe]

48. Regardless of the chance for success,

if you don't impeach a sitting President when he or she has so blatantly put them selves above the law, you only set the bar lower for the next one. It will only get worse long after Bush/Cheney are gone if there is no accountability for their actions. If you don't get enough votes to convict, at the very least, you've made a statement that this type of conduct is unacceptable.

[OneBlueSky]

57. they have to impeach because it's in their oath of office . . .

each senator and member of Congress pledged to "preserve and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" . . . Congress has a responsibility to impeach if "high crimes and misdemeanors" are suspected . . . and in BushCo's case, they are not merely suspected . . . much of the evidence is in the public record and is, in fact, prima facie . . .

further, time may well be running out . . . I firmly believe that Bush is not issuing all of these draconian Executive Orders for the possible benefit of some future president . . . his mind doesn't work that way . . . I believe that he fully intends to activate them at the earliest possible time -- even if he and his co-conspirators have to orchestrate a national crisis . . .

when that happens, it will be too late . . . the Constitution, and the powers of Congress, will be "suspended" in the interest of national security . . . they won't be ABLE to impeach . . . and those who dare to question the dictatorship may well find themselves in "re-education" camps -- with no habeus corpus . . . websites like DU will be shut down . . .

the problem with Congress is that they're more afraid of Bush/Cheney than they are of losing their country -- something that I find thoroughly baffling and disgusting . . . future generations will be shaking their heads and asking "Why didn't they stop them?" . . .

[Lerkfish]

61. The same questions we have now about the "good germans" in WWII

"Why didn't they stop him?"

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Bush isn't the first President to think he's above the law and get away with it...

Remember Nixon's impeachment was about the coverup of a petty crime. It wasn't related to his official duties as President, despite the fact that he committed horrible abuses in that regard as well.

Crimes in the American Peoples' minds are committed by ordinary people. If the President commits an ordinary crime, they see the need to remove the President from office.

An abuse of power is different than a crime and isn't seen as a crimes. Only government officials can commit abuses of power, ordinary people cannot. Thus far Presidents have been getting away abuses of power and not getting impeached since John Adams was in the White House.

Therefore we have two roads to impeachment. One, conduct more hearings and find a way to build a case that Bush and Cheney have committed an ordinary crime like say obstruction of justice. Two, overturn 200+ years of precedent that Presidents can't be removed from office for abusing power in conducting their official duties.

Just because we see illegally spying on American citizens as an impeachable offense, doesn't mean that everyone does. Wilson and Nixon, among others, did the same thing and got away without punishment. How do we build a case that Bush is different?

The fact is that the American People are more or less okay with the President being above the law, so long as they only break the law to "protect the country" and that opinion started long before Bush was inaugurated. We need to reverse that opinion before we can impeach them. Either that or we have to start looking for petty crimes.

[Lerkfish]

60. very interesting post.

and very thought-provoking.