"The notion that Conyers or Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken," ~ John Nichols

[mzmolly]

The internal strife on the left probably doesn’t make much difference to the chances for impeachment, he says. That’s because, Nichols explains, no one leader in the House can make impeachment happen.

“John Conyers wants to impeach, there’s no question of that. He wrote a book on it last year. He moved the proposal to set up a special committee to do it. But Pelosi has made it clear she doesn’t want to do it,” Nichols says.

“We’re exactly where we’ve been all along, which is this process is going to have to go member by member, getting them to sign on. John Conyers would be absolutely delighted if he were forced to take up impeachment.”

The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken, Nichols says. “The way Jefferson and Madison set it up, it’s supposed to be an organic process–it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25098">AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG

[EstimatedProphet]

1. Absolutely

[BlooInBloo]

2. Sweet! I said the same thting in the other stupid it's-all-pelosi's-fault thread!

[mzmolly]

3. I hope this gets some attention. I would venture to guess that Conyers suggested

this recently to some who refused to "grasp" it?

[tblue37]

65. Yeah, I have gotten so tired of patiently explaining this to the

all-or-nothing-throw-the-Dem-representative-to-the-wolves hotheads that I now have my explanation saved in Word so I can copy-paste it where needed. But I have even grown tired of doing that, since they don't seem to care about the realities of the political process.

[mzmolly]

75. Exhausting

to be sure. It's not puzzling to me that the average "man on the street" wouldn't get it, but when those who supposedly follow politics don't appear to, it's puzzling.

[BlooInBloo]

113. It's because they don't *want* to get it. DUers *really* love ripping on Dems...

... It's weird - 'cuz I don't even agree with Pelosi on the impeachment-off-the-table thing - I just think it's *more* asinine to throw everyone under the bus, when they don't act as I think they should.

[mzmolly]

116. Agreed!

:hi:

[bobbolink]

80. bwahahahahaha! Oh, so put upon....

:crazy:

Great way to build peace in the party....

[tblue37]

97. OK, Bobbolink, I will copy-paste my core argument

again for you:

I believe that impeachment is only ostensibly "off the table," while they lay the foundation for an airtight case that these slippery SOBs can't slip out of. With the Justice Department as compromised as it is, it is a tricky endeavor, and so they are dotting all their i's and crossing their t's.

When Pelosi said it was "off the table," the Dems were in the middle of a crucial election campaign and the Republicans were using the "I" word as a way of scaring and rallying their troops. Pelosi was undercutting them on that issue. I am quite certain that when they have the airtight case ready, impeachment will suddenly be seen to be right there on the table after all. Schumer's questioning shows that they are trying very hard to build that case.

We KNOW they have committed innumerable impeachable offenses, but we don't have the votes to convict yet. But by laying out in public such a clear case by way of these investigations, the Senate Dems are hoping to create such a popular groundswell for impeachment that will force vulnerable Republicans to sign on to the program. At that point, it will be possible to force BushCo out of office either by resignation or by actual impeachment. That is also what happened when Nixon faced impeachment. They did the public investigations and built the case first, until the Republicans really had no choice but to tell Nixon to resign or face impeachment. Because they had done the investigations, Nixon knew that he would be impeached and convicted if he didn't resign.

[mzmolly]

99. Again,

we agree. :hi:

[bear425]

122. Well said and I tend to agree with this scenario.

The case for impeachment is being built and, ultimately, it will come from a demand by the people of our country.
Just this morning, there was a call for support for HR 333 in my local paper. It was very good to see. Here's the link:
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070729/OPINION02/70727066/1040/OPINION

[pacalo]

130. Thanks for clarifying, tblue...

rather than echoing the numerous other replies to the OP with "this is what I've been trying to explain for the longest time". :)

If those explanations were included in threads bashing Nancy Pelosi or John Conyers, then the reason why these replies were so cryptic to me is because I skip over those threads. I admire both.

Thanks for providing your insight, & I agree totally with everything you said. I do believe, though, it is essential for the people to put as much pressure on Congress as possible to make it happen. John Conyers stated about 4 years ago that Congress will not do anything until they've heard from the people; until then, their hands are tied.

Your post is brilliant.

[mzmolly]

131. I agree.

:hi:

[tblue37]

152. Thanks, and I agree. We *do* need the grassroots pressure,

and it does need to be fierce--though it also needs to be applied to Republicans, especially them, not just to the people on our side. What bothers me is the attacks on Conyers, Waxman, and Pelosi, calling them tools of the corporate interests or "Republicans-lite."

One reason Republicans can get elected and take power in this country, even though their policies are the opposite of what most Americans believe in or want, is that they work together and their fierce foot soldiers attack Dems, whereas Dems' fierce foot soldiers tend to attack Dems rather than Republicans.

Whenever one of our guys plays the game well enough to get into a position of power, our foot soldiers take the fact that the individual is in a position of power to be evidence that he/she is one of the bad guys, and then they do whatever they can to knock our guy out of the power spot. How nuts is that?

[pacalo]

182. Again, we're in agreement.

It does bother me that the focus of attacks isn't against the Republicans. It is their mess & they should have to answer for it. And for those who harp about the Democrats' votes in the beginning, perhaps they need to be reminded about what the political climate was like back then -- the same kind of climate that made us seek out forums of like minds to vent; the climate that created Democratic Underground.

[Virginia Dare]

144. Thanks for continuing to patiently explain the scenario...

although it's understandable that folks have run out of patience, it's still no excuse to willfully not see the truth behind what's happening. There are a few trolls here who are spreading the "Pelosi is a right wing tool" meme and it's clouding all of the facts surrounding the whole issue. Nancy Pelosi never said Bush will never be impeached. She did not say it would never be considered. When the time is right, and I believe they are making inroads towards that time, it will be back on the table. There will have to be least a modicum of bipartisan support first. This Democratic Congress will not be part of a Clinton redux.

[mzmolly]

206. We think alike.

:hi:

[wryter2000]

154. Bingo!

When Pelosi said it was "off the table," the Dems were in the middle of a crucial election campaign and the Republicans were using the "I" word as a way of scaring and rallying their troops. Pelosi was undercutting them on that issue.

Plus, if she said she was going to impeach, she would have been announcing that she was going to make herself President if the Dems won the house. That would have endeared her to the country at exactly the moment we needed their votes...NOT.

[ProudDad]

209. Ok, then why did the DLC clone Rahm Emanuel

say it was "still off the table" last week on Ed Shultz???


Oh yeah, I know. The 2008 election trumps the Constitution...

[wryter2000]

222. I'm not going to defend Rahm Emanuel

I was only addressing Nancy Pelosi. I don't think she takes her orders from him.

[PatSeg]

180. Thanks for the common sense

We need to continue to demand impeachment, but quit attacking the representatives who are working through the system to make it happen.

[Virginia Dare]

142. I feel the same tblue...n/t

[wryter2000]

149. May I have a copy of your response? :-)

I didn't think to record mine.

Usually, I just ask, "Which 17 Republican Senators will vote to convict?" I get some pretty interesting answers.

Then, the day * stated he wouldn't let the Justice Department investigate Gonzo, when folks started screaming for impeachment NOW, I asked, "What would impeachment change?" I got two answers -- "We wouldn't have to go through a political hack," and (I swear to God this was the entire second answer) "Everything. Impeachment would change everything."

[tblue37]

157. wryter2000,

If you want to make a Word document of my response and copy-paste it whenever you need it, please feel free to do so. That goes for anyone else who would like to use my response (though maybe credit me, so that when I reuse my own response, I won't get replies saying that I just copied what you wrote, heh heh heh.)

[wryter2000]

177. Thanks.

I may make a few of my own additions and give both of us credit.

[tblue37]

184. Excellent!--and please let me see what you add so I can add it

to my responses, too, where appropriate (also giving both of us credit, of course).

[LiberalFighter]

139. Then there are Democrats that have no idea who can be impeached and how

From last nite's post from DailyKos it was revealed that Ellen Tauscher of California apparently believes that Cabinet members are not civil officers. She is of course wrong.

They should put together a packet that clearly explains the impeachment process and give a copy to every member of Congress.

[mzmolly]

165. Great idea.

:hi:

[ProudDad]

208. Pelosi can either move the process

or block the process.

So far, she's been blocking the process...

You do the math...

[glowing]

4. hmm... I think most people can support the notion of impeachment

and wouldn't it be novel if just one of them happened to sign onto HR333. It might have legitimate success.

[mzmolly]

6. See my journal for info on contacting individual members of congress.

We all have to work on this from a local level.

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. And surely you have contacted Conyers and asked him to sign HR 333

Right?

[mzmolly]

43. No, I've contacted my local rep. I'd rather Conyers not sign on yet.

He's leading the investigation, and he should appear impartial IMO.

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. LOL He is through investigating

I think I already told you that.

[mzmolly]

51. No he isn't.

WE have many avenues to pursue this administration.

[IndyOp]

5. We must combine patience with passion, outrage with steadiness, realism with radicalism

From a speech by Sam Webb (link below)...

In the months ahead, this broad based movement has to avoid three dangers that I alluded to earlier.

One is strategic fuzziness and tactical narrowness that takes the form of skipping stages, counter posing advanced against partial demands, and turning Congressional Democrats into the main enemy.

A second danger is complacency and passivity that takes the form of simply relying on the Democratic Party to express the anger of millions and to enact legislation. Unless tens of millions of people see and feel the organizational and political weight of an organized movement that is championing their interests in day-to-day struggles, the mobilization in the 2008 elections will not reach its full potential.

:applause:

And the final danger is disunity that comes in many forms. One that I don’t think we anticipated is the fissures and even ruptures within the people’s movement that have cropped up in the course of legislative struggles. The legislative battles over peace and immigration come to mind. How to maintain unity when differences on legislation or any other matter arise – and they inevitably will – is a critical question.

<snip>

Not everybody in the peace movement, however, is on the same page it appears. Some forget, or dismiss out of hand, that Democrats overwhelmingly and a few Republicans passed a supplemental spending bill this spring that included a timetable for withdrawal or that the surge is solely the handiwork of Bush or that the views of the majority of people correspond with the outlook of the majority of Congressional Democrats.

Instead, we are told that the only thing that stands in the way of a quick exit from Iraq is the Democratic Party and the treacherous role of its leadership. All Pelosi and Reid have to do is wave a magic wand and in a flash the necessary votes in the Senate and House will appear to end the war.

Since the Democratic leadership won’t, the peace movement, so the argument goes, has no option, but to divide the Democrats – progressives against centrists. But before anyone does this, the following questions should be asked: who will benefit from this suggested division of the Democrats in the House and Senate? Who will gain advantage from shifting responsibility for war from Bush to Pelosi? Which party’s electoral prospects will be improved going into 2008 if the peace movement works to split the Democratic Party? <snip>

In response to a group of communists whose manifesto militantly proclaimed that they wanted to attain their goal without stopping at intermediate stages and without any compromises, Frederick Engels wrote, “What childish innocence it is to present impatience as a theoretically convincing argument.” <snip>

Those of us on the left have to combine patience with passion, outrage with steadiness, realism with radicalism.

More from two great articles posted in the Editorials Forum

[mzmolly]

9. Kick ass post!

"patience with passion, outrage with steadiness, realism with radicalism..."

:toast:

[Virginia Dare]

146. I'd like to think that most peace activists subscribe to this idea..

thanks for the great post!..

[tandot]

7. K & R.

Thanks, mzmolly.

I especially like that statement:

"The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken, Nichols says. “The way Jefferson and Madison set it up, it’s supposed to be an organic process–it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up.”

It means that We The People have to convince politicians who are not on our side yet to join us. People should target moderate Republicans and Democrats, instead of targeting politicians who are already in favor of impeaching.

[tblue37]

69. I fully believe that Conyers, Pelosi, et al. have been signaling us that

they want a grassroots groundswell to push the Republicans into recognizing that impeachment is inevitable. Just as with Watergate, we can't do anything unless we can get enough Republicans to join in.

Meanwhile, the ongoing investigations are collecting (and getting into the public record and, despite footdragging by the corporate media, into public awareness) the evidence that will ensure that when impeachment comes, conviction will follow--unless Cheney & Bush resign to forestall certain conviction, as Nixon did. They are also making the public more aware of the stonewalling by the Cheney/Bush administration.

I suspect that a moment will come, probably sooner than we expect, when the tipping point will be reached and things will start moving with astonishing speed.

[mzmolly]

77. My thoughts as well.

:hi:

[applegrove]

8. Hear Hear.

[stirlingsliver]

10. Can Nancy AT LEAST Stop Resisting It??

OK, so maybe Nancy Pelosi cannot "make" impeachment happen.

But would it really be too much to ask her to stop her efforts at preventing it from happening???

[FreepFryer]

12. Just WHAT efforts has Pelosi undertaken 'preventing it from happening?' I don't see that at all (nt)

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. As leader of the party in the house she said, with no qualifications,

that impeachment was off the table.

THAT is active resistance. If she were to simply say, "In light of recent revelations, impeachment is no longer off the table" I think we'd see a flurry of statements from previously non-committal members favoring impeachment, and a rush of members signing on to Kucinich's bill. She doesn't have to actively work for it - just stand aside and let it happen.

[stirlingsliver]

23. Exactly.

Her public statements -- like the one saying that impeachment is "off the table" -- have demoralized many people.

If she wants to LEAD, she should LEAD.

Not wait until the people demand something.

She should be articulating the reasons for impeachment.

Instead, it appears that she is sitting back, waiting for something to happen.

And all the while, speaking out against impeachment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Yes

She needs to make a statement on this.

[mzmolly]

46. And she said "we'll see where investigations lead."

That's the quote I'm focusing on. ;)

[FreepFryer]

78. Precisely. If you can't understand why the successor says that, you don't understand the game. (n/t)

[creeksneakers2]

83. If Nancy Pelosi said

"Impeachment is no longer off the table," the media would go nuts. The media always interprets statements like "no longer off the table" with the most sensational meanings possible. Pelosi would lead every newscast. Every move the Democrats made afterward would be analyzed as part of an impeachment drive.

Its a bad idea to start a war you can't finish.

[Yukari Yakumo]

104. "Its a bad idea to start a war you can't finish."

If only someone told that to Chimpy...

[truedelphi]

198. Oh pish and piddle

The media alreadyw ill go nuts.

it will go nuts as Code Pink members are decried as the new Anti Christs.
It will go ballistic over Waxman.

When they lead us all off to camps the media will be right there telling the remaining Americans why we were all best friends of Osama Bin Laden.

It is Pelosi's job to do what is right. Neither Bruce Fein or John Dean would be wringing their hands over Pelosi if they thought she was behaving properly.

In Fein's words (in answer to Bill Moyers of why Impeachment is not moving forward, unlike the heady days of the summer of 1974) "There are no statesmen in the Congeress today. Only politicians."

[struggle4progress]

132. If you want it on the table, generate the widespread public outrage and the co-sponsors in the House

needed to make it politically possible

[The Stranger]

201. Saying it is "off the table" was catastrophic. It sounds too much like a signal that she was

"playing ball" after being offered something, or being bought off.

[truedelphi]

221. A paid gatekeeper could not do what you are suggesting

She's taken the money (or maybe just the offer to NOT "out" her on whatever they have on her)
and she can't go back now (unless she's willing to take the consequences)

[mzmolly]

13. I don't think she is resisting behind the scenes. I think SHE is setting forth an agenda and knows

full well how impeachment has to happen.

I have some info in my journal where she clarified the "table" remark.

Remember when PUBLICLY Nancy was non-supportive of the Murtha troop deadline, and we found out "later" that she and Murtha worked behind the scenes on this strategy?

I don't sell the speaker short, she'll claim a "change of heart" when Conyers had dug up a sufficient amount of dirt and "we the people" overwhelmingly rise up and demand action.

I'm out for a while. :hi:

[FreepFryer]

14. BINGO. (n/t)

[Lerkfish]

22. "behind the scenes"

I've had it up to here with "behind the scenes" and everyone telling us to lay off our dems because they're working hard "behind the scenes". The problem is, as time and time again we say, there IS NO WORK GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES.

[stirlingsliver]

27. She Has Tbe "Bully Pulpit" ----

Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers both have the "Bully Pulpit"..

Nancy especially could be using her position to speak -- LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY -- about impeahcment and the need for it.

Instead, all we get is drivel about how things are being done "behind the scenes".

[mzmolly]

45. Sure, she could look partisan and alienate people who might otherwise

come to the correct conclusion. I prefer that we continue exposing the administration and affording people an opportunity to learn the truth, without Limbaugh drawing a line in the sand for them.

[stirlingsliver]

114. "Go Along To Get Along"

Heaven forbid that a statement by the Speaker of the House might say something that might (gasp!) alienate people.

The FACTS are on OUR SIDE.

Instead of laying out the facts and taking on the nay-sayers, Nancy just "goes along".

It is, after all, so very important to "get along".

[mzmolly]

117. Ah yes facts, however unfortunately that word has become objective

in political circles. What we need on our side is "the people" and we need a clear majority of them.

[NotGivingUp]

125. The dems have LOST more votes by NOT impeaching than they will EVER gain. n/t

[mzmolly]

127. It's not over yet.

n/t

[NotGivingUp]

124. Could look partisan? What about upholding the constitution?? n/t

[mzmolly]

128. Who said we should ignore the constitution.

Not me, I favor impeachment when the time is right.

[mzmolly]

40. No don't lay off the Dems, but move beyond JUST two, is what I suggest.

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

150. Exactly, Impeachment can't be about Nancy Pelosi...

the right wing smear machine worked overtime just before the election attempting to scare monger the people into thinking that number one on Nancy Pelosi's agenda was to impeach George Bush. She took that talking point away. I fully believe that the Democrats, the vast majority of them anyway, truly want to see Bush and or Cheney impeached, but they will go forth with an iron clad case first, and it will not be due to any agenda that Nancy Pelosi sets. As tblue said, it will be an organic grassroots movement that will build from the bottom up.

[truedelphi]

197. hey there, now THERE'S a thought

I'm in agreement there.
And it seems that Constitutional scholars such as Bruce Fein, along with John Dean, seems frustrated to the n th degree with Madame SPeaker.

She is obfuscating - she certainly had no duty to "take impeachment off the table"

[mmonk]

11. One problem.

It doesn't necessarily come from the people. This is a smokescreen to cover members who are still protecting bush/Cheney. The rest is correct. Not enough democrats are on board.

[mzmolly]

15. I disgree mmonk, and John Nichols is an "expert" who appeared on the Moyers program.

I plan to read his book in the near. Nichol's has been arguing for impeachment for quite some time, and he's been critical of Pelosi as well. What he says is correct, it's not a top down process, it's a bottom up, which is why many of us including Pelosi have said "let's see where the investigations take us."

[mmonk]

16. So the American people were on board with impeaching Clinton?

I'm not so forgiving with the excuses.

[H2O Man]

18. Very good point.

I'll take that one step further, and say that the Clinton episode was an example of when impeachment was used as a political process -- meaning it was abused -- rather than as process of civil law.

[mzmolly]

48. EXACTLY.

I'd prefer we not have a repeat. And, I'd rather not give the R's that "partisan politics" talking point. Impeachment needs overwhelming and undeniable support. I don't think we're that far away.

[mmonk]

70. There's no chance of that no matter when we start.

Even Richard Nixon, who has been the gold standard on abuse of power is a choir boy next to bush/Cheney.

[mzmolly]

72. I think recent history proves otherwise.

It wasn't long ago that many Americans were deeming that torture was akin to college fraternity pranks.

[wryter2000]

179. Agreed

I'm becoming convinced that the voices for impeachment (such as Thom Hartman) are doing a good thing in that they're bringing up what needs to be done over and over. I'm not in favor of bringing impeachment until enough people have come around that it'll accomplish something, but we need to get it into people's heads that Bush/Cheney have done multiple things that merit impeachment.

[mzmolly]

47. NO, which is why WE need to behave differently.

Shall we emulate the Republicans partisan show? I hope OUR leaders know better.

[mmonk]

74. Give me a break. You people are a politician's wet dream.

Impeachment is political in the first place and second, this would be the least partisan impeachment in history even trumping the impeachment threat of Nixon.

[mzmolly]

76. To clarify: we can't appear partisan.

I don't think our reasons ARE partisan, in the least. However until we have bipartisan support any action will be viewed as such.

[mmonk]

90. Fair enough.

Sorry about all this but I feel quite passionate on the need to proceed with haste. No offense intended.

[H2O Man]

93. I am in favor

of impeaching Cheney now. I think hat there are enough issues on the table now, for congress to give serious consideration to impeaching Bush. I do not think that those who are advocating the impeachment of Cheney and/or Bush can be accused of doing so for "political" purposes.

Both Cheney and Bush have violated the law, and both pose a threat to our Constitutional democracy. My statement was intended to endorse the call for action.

[mmonk]

101. I know. You look at it from the right perspectives. Especially the rule of law

and our democracy.

[mzmolly]

95. Understood.

Fully. :hi:

[mmonk]

100. I understand that you don't want it to look partisan.

[mzmolly]

102. Thanks mmonk.

I want this measure to go down in history as a valid exercise in preserving the Constitution. I don't want to leave more to "spin" than we have to. However, I fully appreciate the urgency felt by so many. I confess, I would not shed a tear of Pelosi announced tomorrow that she intends to encourage impeachment, but I would wonder if the outcome could have been better in the end, if she had been more patient?

Peace

[mmonk]

109. She has no choice but to be patient.

Enough members have to be on board. In the meantime, she must provide some cover or they may never do it.

[mzmolly]

110. I don't think we need cover as much as information

getting out to the masses.

In closing, I hope we'll both cheer the day we begin impeachment mmonk. :hi:

I'm taking a break.

[mmonk]

111. Peace mzmolly.

[H2O Man]

120. A significant part

of the congress's responsibility is to inform citizens. In a very real sense, they need to be addressing the issues involved in the (potentially) impeachable offenses in a public manner. Of course, some people will accuse them of doing this for purely political reasons. But that should never be an excuse to not do the right thing.

[mmonk]

126. I think the fact congressional democrats are finding it difficult to start doing the

right thing concerning these somewhat grave matters and offenses while informing and showing the public the impeachable offenses is what bothers me the most. The right things to do should never be that difficult. If not them, who will? While we can keep the pressure on, we seem ultimately at their mercy to do so.

[H2O Man]

136. Exactly.

This is one of the reasons I urge DUers to inform their elected representatives that they will be using the response they get as a foundation for their next LTTE. That is how the grass roots can coordinate efforts to inform and educate the public. Sometimes, this works to everyone's advantage; other times, not.

I still remember one time, in the Reagan years, when I wrote to NYS Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, regarding the US role in Central America. I got a response thanking me for saying just the opposite of what I had, and endorsing that stance. Two days later, I got a "correction" letter, saying to disregard the first. It took the exact opposite stance. I took both letters to the editor of the Oneonta NY newspaper (Moynihan lived near Pinders Corners, a few miles outside of Oneonta.) The result did not endear me to the good senator's staff, but it both informed and educated the readers of the paper.

[truedelphi]

192. Of course some will say it is motivated for partisan reasons

But many of those people are people who voted for the CLinton Impeachment - a partisan move if ever there was one

[Virginia Dare]

155. Agreed, but if the Democrats do go forth in haste...

with no support from the Republicans at all, they run the extreme danger of not only coming up with no conviction, but also turning the public support against them. You have to look very carefully at the polls. The majority of the people favor impeachment IF IT CAN BE PROVED that Bush lied about taking us to war. The proof is the tricky part, as there will always be plausible deniability. That is what got Bill Clinton off the hook.

While I agree with you that time is of the essence, it also doesn't make sense to go into it so half-cocked that you come away with nothing, or less than what you had before.

[H2O Man]

17. It's both.

It has to come from a combination of public pressure, and from congressional leadership. The actual history of impeachment in the US indicates that both are very important.

[Cameron27]

32. Could they be stalling until Gonzo is removed?

(I'm fuzzy on the steps leading to the appointment of a special prosecutor.)

[Virginia Dare]

158. Leahy has Bush between a rock and a hard place here...

on the one hand if he leaves Gonzo in, Leahy will be forced to impeach him. On the other hand, if Bush lets him go, he doesn't have a prayer of getting anybody he would deem acceptable, and who would continue with the cover ups and the lies, through Leahy in the confirmation process. Either way, the dam is going to break, and regardless of whether he stays or goes, Gonzo committed perjury and he will be prosecuted.

[mzmolly]

39. That's another way to look at it.

In fact, Nichols pointed this out in his commentary above.

"it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up.”

One could consider this a bottom up AND top down I suppose? But the movement begins with "the people" and the people are educated/moved/motivated by the process which is guided by those at "the top." ;)

:hi:

Edited for grammar and clarification.

[RaleighNCDUer]

91. And if we really go slowly enough, it becomes a moot point

as the administration runs out the clock -

Then, everybody will say it's not important anyway because the malefactors are already out of office. And once again, the criminals will skate.

[mzmolly]

94. Worth consideration. However some calling for impeachment say it takes a couple months?

I don't know how long it would take personally. I suppose that would depend upon which crimes we chose to illustrate?

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. I think we do only have a couple months.

Sure, there's a year and a half to go in this administration, but precious few months before the 08 election season really starts, and once in election mode no attempt at impeachment, no matter how justified, will fail to be painted as electoral opportunism. Running out the clock means just hanging on till December, at the latest. Coming back after the christmas break, impeachment doesn't stand a chance unless we have pictures of Bush blowing Cheney in the Rose Garden - and even that would avoid the real, political reasons for impeachment.

[mzmolly]

106. I think it will be painted as opportunism until we have a bipartisan groundswell?

:shrug:

[truedelphi]

199. Currently the thinking breathing experts on Constitution

Consider it opportunism that we don't have impeachment on the table.

Bill Moyers asks Constitutional expert Bruce Fein why impeachment is not moving forward. Fein's answer: "In the summer of 1974 -we had statemen - but currently COngress is ONLY poltiicians, not sttesmen." (I am paraphrasing)

[mzmolly]

203. The Nixon timeline is posted below.

And the circumstances are quite different. But, I do have understanding for this position. I simply refuse to believe that John Conyers is not a "statesman."

[H2O Man]

123. Exactly.

One of the things we find from studying the example of Martin Luther King Jr is that there are always people who will list the reasons to not do the right thing .... they can be counted on to say, "Be patient. Now isn't the 'right' time." But as King showed, now is always the right time to do the right thing.

[mzmolly]

129. I'm not suggesting we not do the right thing. I'm suggesting we do an important thing right.

Just to clarify in case there is any question about my views. I understand and appreciate the arguments favoring "impeachment now."

Adding a quote by Indyop that I feel is relevant: Those of us on the left have to combine patience with passion, outrage with steadiness, realism with radicalism.

IMO, we are all essential to this debate because collectively we represent the statement above.

Edited to add a quote which I feel you'll "relate" to H20Man as it pertains to this discussion.

"I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."

Both MLK and Malcom X had an important place in history, despite their differences, both were essential to "the collective cause."

Peace and sweet dreams - of impeachment. :hi:

[H2O Man]

137. There are distinct

advantages to the democratic party having both a right and a left hand, when those hands work together in a coordinated manner. The right hand should not approach this conflict palm-up, like a beggar; the left need not approach it with a clenched fist; and neither should request that the other be tied behind the party's back. It's already past the time when we need to get down to a very serious, very focused effort to respond to the threat to our Constitutional democracy.

[mzmolly]

145. Indeed, and I see that focused effort taking place.

Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part? As certainly, not all of us view the investigations as a focused effort. However, the reason for my "hope" is this small clarification from Nancy Pelosi on her famed "table" remark: She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: “You never know where it leads to.”

As I've said before, I think we all know where "it" will lead.

I woke pondering if only we had our generations version of deep-throat. How much easier things would be.

Regardless, I remain optimistic.

[IndyOp]

19. I don't think John Nichols is expending effort to create a smokescreen

for congressmembers who are protecting Bush/Cheney. I think Nichols profoundly respects the democratic process of impeachment - which has to begin with the people and trickle up...

Do you have evidence that the constituents of these "problem democrats" want their representatives to begin impeachment proceedings? If not, then I think your assertion about a "smokescreen" is weak.

John Nichols is the author of "THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: THE FOUNDERS' CURE FOR ROYALISM."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/impeachment.html

Nichols was a HIT on Bill Moyers Journal just a few weeks back:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

[mmonk]

20. So why don't they say it?

It is cover until they change their minds. I made no claim Nichols does not respect the democratic process. I just know there is no such stipulation in the constitution.

[IndyOp]

29. So why doesn't Congress say that they are waiting for their constituents to lead?

If members of Congress say that "We want to impeach, if only our constituents will call us and ask us to..." then they will appear to be leading the impeachment proceedings - the process is not coming from the people.

The process of impeachment matters as much as the product of impeachment - paralyzing the Bush/Cheney administration from doing further damage or removing them completely.

If the process of impeachment is driven by the people, then our democracy, our people, our grassroots movements will be stronger. If the process of impeachment is driven by leadership in Congress then the rest of Congress and the people will not have been strengthened.

Ghandi argued that the process of removing an unjust leader is as important as the product, right? If a people uses violent means to overthrow a leader then they will inevitably wind up with a new leadership that knows only how to use to violence to impact change. If a people uses non-violent action to rid themselves of a bad leader then the people - the networks, the communities, the individuals - will be strong and ready to govern themselves in a just society.

If we have any major roadblock it is the corporate media -- the people would have long ago decided that impeachment was vital if the corporate media carried the news and views posted daily on sites like this one, presented daily on DemocracyNow! or Countdown or The Thom Hartmann show on AAR.

[mmonk]

31. Actually when members refuse to act, the constitution provides

for people to iniate it through the states. It is a sorry affair when we have to resort to such measures.

[IndyOp]

33. And many states are initiating impeachment, which is great, because

it will inform other citizens why impeachment is necessary and change public opinion so that Congressmembers hear from their constituents and get moving!

Anything we can do to inform people so they will push their Congressmembers to act, is the right direction for us to go -- it isn't a sorry state of affairs unless there is overwhelming public demand for impeachment and Congress still won't act -- and there is NOT overwhelming demand for impeachment right now. There is at DU, but not "out there"...

[Vidar]

24. They can't make it happen, but they can obstruct the process, which

is what Pelosi has been doing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. The notion that we can expect Conyers or Pelosi to preserve

our constitution is mistaken.

[mzmolly]

53. No the notion that Libertarians and Nader voters are being honest and upfront with those who

"follow" them is mistaken. However, if what you assert is correct, it's time to move on to local reps no?

[DaveT]

28. Weird Whining.

You do not have to agree completely with Nichols or anybody else to recognize the stupidity of whining about how we are not getting our way with this Congress. The goal should be to get Congress to act. You will not induce Congress to act by whining about how they never do anything. In point of fact, all you do with that line is play into a professional politician's prejudice against far left loopiness.

I have no problem with anybody who is impatient or even angry at Pelosi as Speaker or at the Dems as a group for not being more aggressive. My problem comes when this impatience or anger is channeled into a fatalistic dismissal of the whole process. This mindset is the quintessence of stupidity.

We need to put pressure on the Congress -- both Democrats and Republicans -- to do their duty. Whatever cynical opinions you may have about why things are not going faster really have no bearing on the situation. Either the Congress will act or it won't.

Let's do what we can to persuade them to take action.

[mmonk]

34. Impeachment is neither far left loopiness or radical but the least

we should expect under the circumstances. Many people are trying to get them to impeach, probably the most in history.

[DaveT]

35. "the least we can expect"?

What does that mean? That you should be able to sit on your couch with a remote in your hand and be entitled to get the result you want from the Congress?

Do you think that slavery was abolished by people who thought that abolition was the least we could expect? Do think that women got the right to vote because sufferage was the least we could expect? Do you think that Jim Crowe was abolished because the right to vote and the right to a seat on a bus was the least we could expect?

Expect away, my friend. Nothing will come of expectations.

It appears that we agree on the issue of impeachment. We both want it to happen. But I don't expect anything from the corporate-run state. And I think that your formulation is a passive aggressive whine that is counter-productive.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are getting at . . . .

[mmonk]

42. In a clear attack on the constitutional checks and balances

and the Bill of Rights as well as the statutory crimes, yes impeachment is the least I or any American should expect. It's been pretty much a settled point for most of our history.

[mzmolly]

54. Right

on!

[John Q. Citizen]

36. From the same article linked in the OP - and this is the more important part

While Democrats give voice to public discontent with the Bush administration, the leadership is still operating on the theory that as Bush and the Republicans head off the cliff, the best course of action is to get out of the way. Politically, Nichols concedes, they might be right: “They should just stand up and say if we abdicate our constitutional responsibilities and don’t do our job, we’ll reap the benefits. It will allow us to do good things. They might be right. Standing by and letting a crash occur might benefit you. That’s a credible case.”

Of course, the Democrats are saying no such thing. Instead, they talk about getting on with the important business of the Congress, and not wasting time on impeachment. The argument that impeachment would be a time-waster is, according to Nichols, “bullshit.” He points out that the same Congress that impeached Richard Nixon accomplished a great deal, in terms of dialing down the Vietnam war, raising the minimum wage, passing environmental legislation, and making other important, progressive gains.

“The idea that taking up impeachment will keep us from acting on health care, gay rights, etc., is ahistoric,” Nichols says. “The fact of the matter is that during the impeachment of Nixon back in the 70s, the reason Congress was so effective and got so much done was that Nixon was scared and, in a calculated move, started cooperating with Congress to avoid impeachment. So the right thing to do is move immediately–see what you can get out of Bush.”

For that theory to win the day, the pressure on Congress from voters has to continue to grow.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25098


So while the OP as well as others complained because demonstrators - Americans- have been putting pressure on Conyers and Pelosi, at the same time they attempt to argue that putting pressure on our representitives is "attacking good Dems."

Of course it's not. It's just putting pressure on our representitives, exactly what the article says we need to do to push impeachment.

If Conyer and Pelosi would sign on to HR333, and quit making up excuses as to why they won't, we could quit putting pressure on them and move on to other representitives. Also, Conyers and Peolsi could help us put pressure on other representitves.

It's time to stop making excuses for anyone in congress who is standing in the way of the will of the people, Dem or Repo.

[mzmolly]

38. I've never argued that putting pressure on Conyers and Pelosi was "attacking"

I've argued that what has been said about Conyers and Pelosi is such. Further the pressure needs to move BEYOND Conyers and Pelosi, one must contact their local reps.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. You haven't been paying attention. People have been putting pressure on

many reps, primarily the Dems at this point since they control congress and since they are spouting bullshit excuses as to why they won't support impeachment.

If it has to come from the poeple, what is it about a referendum voting 60% in faveor of impeachment from Nancy's district that she just doesn't get?

Her excuses are bullshit, as pointed out by Nichols in the article you linked to. I agree with him.

Do you?

[mzmolly]

55. I am paying attention. What we must do is contact Dems and Republicans who represent us in the

congress.

As to your other point, I've addressed what I think Nancy Pelosi is doing strategically. Nichols, I believe is correct in his argument against Pelosi's PUBLIC "off the table, let's get stuff done" stance.

[endarkenment]

156. The difference between 'pressure' and 'attack' is minimal.

It seems mostly to be in the minds of the Faithful here, who see every bit of public pressure on Democratic leaders to change course on impeachment as an attack, and who it seems only support private behind ths scenes non-public efforts such as letter writing, phone calling etc.

Public pressure is hugely important. It is what will force Pelosi to reset her damn table.

[mzmolly]

204. No it isn't. Pressure is supportive, attacking is not.

I agree that public pressure is essential, and it shall be by design if they do this thing right.

[endarkenment]

212. Fine.

"Nancy you are doing a great job, now reset the fucking table or let somebody else do the job".

Pressure is whatever form of pressure you think appropriate, attack is pressure you find inappropriate.

[Anita Garcia]

57. Well said JQC

"If Conyer and Pelosi would sign on to HR333, and quit making up excuses as to why they won't, we could quit putting pressure on them and move on to other representitives. Also, Conyers and Peolsi could help us put pressure on other representitves."
Well said.

[mzmolly]

58. I'd rather both Conyers and Pelosi remain "publicly" above the fray.

FOR NOW.

However, you're entitled to feel otherwise.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. I read a post from a DUer who talked to his Repo Rep and the guy used Pelosi's "Off the table"

stance as an excuse why he wouldn't support impeachment.

He said, "Why would I, when the Speaker has taken it off the table?"

Pelosi has to quit providing excuses for the other members to hide behind!

[mzmolly]

64. Well, that is an "excuse." One I don't buy.

Congress didn't take an oath to Pelosi any more than Republicans did to Bush. I'd remind that member of Congress that they work for us, not Nancy Pelosi.

[John Q. Citizen]

66. If Nancy can bullshit the public with it, why can't other members? Are they

held to a higher standard?

Maybe this guy's Repo Rep is just "working behind the scenes."

Maybe that his "public strategy."

[mzmolly]

71. Pelosi assumes the Presidency if we remove Bush/Cheney from office,

public/loud declarations to impeach on her part, right off the bat, would appear "contrived/political/opportunistic?" Would that not alienate many who might otherwise support impeachment if we are allowed to uncover the evidence one step at time?

It doesn't make sense for those not setting the agenda to have a strategy other than following the will of their constituents. But, if you wish to continue the narrow/misguided focus on Pelosi and Conyers, by all means, do so.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. Not necessarily, or even probably.

There is already a bill for the impeachment of Cheney. If he were to be impeached first it would be up to the (p)resident and the GOP to replace him. If Bush was subsequently impeached, that replacement would become president.

It's the Agnew/Nixon/Ford scenario - and as Cheney already has a bill of impeachment against him that is likely how it would play out.

And, Pelosi being next in line doesn't mean she can't recuse herself from consideration, and pass it down the line specifically to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It doesn't have to look like a coup.

I think this is a CYA arguement with no merit.

[mzmolly]

105. On the Moyers program both Fein and Nichols noted the importance of impeaching both

Bush and Cheney, as both men are guilty of high crimes. Also, we can't assume Cheney will be removed at this point. But I do understand that thought process.

And, Pelosi being next in line doesn't mean she can't recuse herself from consideration, and pass it down the line specifically to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It doesn't have to look like a coup.

This is interesting, who would you suggest she pass the baton to?

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. Normally, I'd say the highest ranking republican in line who is not

part of the Bushco coup. And that would be...uh...well, there must be ONE of them who's not implicated...

[mzmolly]

108. Yikes, I'd hate to set up a candidate to run against us in the coming election

though? It would have to be someone unpopular with the R's. Then again appointing an R would piss off the Dem base. Hmmmm.

Have a nice rest of the day, I'm taking a break! :hi:

[malaise]

37. It certainly didn't come from the people

when it came to Bill Clinton, but I accept his general premise. I also have a copy of Conyers document and have always felt he is on the side of good people and good government.

[undeterred]

41. and Feingold can't make it happen neither

:hi:

[bluedog]

50. You cannot make a stand, without sure footing,

and Conyers, along with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) are trying to establish that sure footing, even as they fend off attacks from the Bush-Cheney regime, and its enablers in the US mainstream news media and the Cult formerly known as the Republican Party.


Conyers, Leahy and Waxman have fought against the invasion and occupation of Iraq since its inception, and have led congressional struggle against the Bush-Cheney regime's lawlessness, throughout this long seven-year descent into hell.


They are not disingenuous.


They are not flacks for the Democratic Leadership Council. They are not Stenny Hoyer ("D"-MD) or Sen. Bill Nelson ("D"-FL).

Go sit down in their offices. But they would not have met with you, and given you the opportunity to insult them, would they?




http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/2007/07/hard-rain-journal-7-26-07-in-defense-of.html



**now isn't this what the Democrats are doing/// getting there men in a row.....and 1 by 1 they(gop) are leaving or falling
down?......these hearings are not games....

[mzmolly]

56. Exactly, we must build the foundation.

Brick by brick.

[EFerrari]

52. I have no problem working to wake Pelosi or Conyers up

to the necessity of impeaching the most corrupt administration in American history.

None at all.

[mzmolly]

59. I think they are awake,

let's wake up the rest of congress, Democrats and Republicans alike. We need to move beyond these two people. We need to contact our own reps in every state across the country.

[EFerrari]

61. I agree with that. n/t

[mzmolly]

67. Thanks Sfexpat,

I think if we limit the focus to two people, "the movement" will stagnate.

[EFerrari]

68. Those two people are in a very difficult position.

While they bear a great deal of responsibility, others (including us!) bear just as much.

[mzmolly]

73. Yes indeed!

YOU SAID IT! :toast:

[Exiled in America]

62. OH SO THATS HOW IT HAPPENED WITH CLINTON - I FORGOT.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[mzmolly]

63. Oh so we wish to repeat that fiasco?

My guess is we're ATTEMPTING to learn from History? Nichols has been speaking out in favor of impeachment for years. He wrote: The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism and recently appeared on Moyers program to discuss impeachment.

Personally, I'd rather we not use Republicans as an example when it comes to honoring the Constitution.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

81. We can't Impeach any more because it isn't politically expedient?

Let's throw away the Constitution then.

[mzmolly]

Not what I suggested at all ...

There is plenty of clarification in this thread regarding my actual thoughts on this.

[Exiled in America]

112. Yes of course we do.

We shouldn't be concerned about "image." We should be concerned about doing what is right.

If Republicans can impeach over a blowjob then you'll forgive me if I don't have much patience for claiming that somehow democrats "can't" impeach. I don't care if it takes political tactics. It's about accomplishing what is necessary to salvage a constitutional democracy being systematically destroyed by traitors and criminals.

You do whatever it takes. And I have zero tolerance for those who suggest otherwise.

[mzmolly]

115. I never suggested we be concerned about image, I suggested we concern ourselves

with success from a historical standpoint. Impeachment need not result in removal, but it should result in a lesson.

However, I can't think of anything I disagree with in your statement?

[Virginia Dare]

160. So we want to follow the Gingrich model of government?

no thanks, I'll take a pass...:eyes:

[Exiled in America]

215. Yes. If that's what it takes.

We shouldn't be concerned about "image." We should be concerned about doing what is right.

If Republicans can impeach over a blowjob then you'll forgive me if I don't have much patience for claiming that somehow democrats "can't" impeach. I don't care if it takes political tactics. It's about accomplishing what is necessary to salvage a constitutional democracy being systematically destroyed by traitors and criminals.

You do whatever it takes. And I have zero tolerance for those who suggest otherwise.

[Virginia Dare]

216. Nobody is saying they "can't" impeach..

and I believe they will impeach, if and when they can gather enough support to do it right. It serves no good purpose otherwise. They shouldn't do it just to make their base feel better, as the Repukes did.

[Le Taz Hot]

79. OH, I just have to bring this up:

"The way Jefferson and Madison set it up, it’s supposed to be an organic process–it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up.”

That's not exactly the way it happened with Clinton yet the Republicans still got away with it.

[mzmolly]

82. The Republicans did it, but they did not succeed.

What we do mustn't look like tit for tat. We should not follow Republican lead on honoring the Constitution.

:shrug:

[Le Taz Hot]

92. Actually, they DID succeed.

We're talking about impeachment, are we not?

[mzmolly]

96. True,

they did succeed in impeachment, not removal.

[Virginia Dare]

161. Is that what we want?

to "get away with it"? No thanks. If there is to be impeachment, I want it done right, not necessarily right now. I want the bastard convicted.

[Greyhound]

84. (Purposeful?) Mis-statement of the issue. It's not that they can make it happen,

it's that they are stopping it from happening.

[mzmolly]

85. They can't stop it from happening. Nor are they attempting to do so.

They're in difficult positions and I'd rather they not come out of this looking like Rovian versions of Democrats. There is much discussion in this thread that you may find of interest.

Some key points to consider:

1. Conyers is in charge of investigating and oversight of this administration, he must appear as though he does not have an impeachment agenda. He should quietly uncover the "dish" and let America take it in.

2. Pelosi takes the proverbial throne if we remove Bush co. from office, she also must not appear to have an "impeachment agenda" or it cheapens the issues surrounding such a move.

I understand that the public comments deserve scrutiny. But if/when we do impeach I'd rather Conyers and Pelosi appeared to be more interested in the Constitution than look like opportunists who are playing a game of partisan tit for tat.

[Greyhound]

87. and if you follow the rules, get good grades, say no to drugs, and work real hard

you to can become President of the United States, or at least make millions of dollars in real estate with no money down...
:eyes:

[mzmolly]

89. Whatever that means.

nt

[PATRICK]

86. Another more embarrassing

reformulation of that is that the Dems will split and embarrass themselves at this point, besides trolls like Lieberman. Impeachment will not just fail because of GOP opposition and the time factor. The party will savage itself over principle and in the sum of worst fears hand a hopeless cause over to yet another spin AGAINST the Dems in every way that ignores the central issues of incontrovertible high crimes and horrendous crises centering on the Coup Syndicate.

My beef is that the official party line, much more so than this article in their defense, is either craven or innocent or deceptive, a guaranteed fearful irritant to people somewhat concerned about LAW, the nation, the future- little things like that. Either they are naive, uncommitted, or would rather hide
the real weakness and their real concern about the situation. i don't know which is worse. I very often believe they believe that crafting goodies for Bush to veto to help us win more .85 vote per individual because they also won't confront election crime is the highest priority and that impeachment isn't really a duty or even concern. Or if this is crafty expediency because they actually have no power to achieve the highest priority do they even consider they could be tragically wrong- and all these lives and all this damage were better to have been bluntly confronted every step of the way.

It has been a long traceable path of surrender and putting off that has got us to higher stakes, higher improbabilities, higher risks, higher ongoing costs. In the end the dem establishment that the surrender will not stop and that justice and reform will fall short and submit to the human garbage that has been successfully bullying them and killing us for decades- or longer.

I grant the point of the article, but the actions and words we hear publicly border on appeasement- and usually become that whatever happens in elections. And by each degree that justice falls short, people will die miserably and the security of humankind threatened. To confront means the whole tamale, and call out the whole society and the whole consequences, no holds barred. To many establishment leaders losing has been the cautionary core worry- and lose they do with more whimper than bang, more silence than rallying calls. If they resisted the people's will less I would believe that unbelievable leadership contradiction- that the people should lead- more. In fact, both people and law and reason and experience itself are opposed by the mortally defective political machines fumbling for myths and power.

[mzmolly]

88. I appreciate your sentiments and believe that they are shared by many.

:hi:

[LibertyorDeath]

118. Good ! Now Pelosi can shut the fuck up about what is or isn't on the table

Dear Nancy,

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Sincerely

A concerned Citizen.

[mzmolly]

133. LOL

you have a point there. It's not her freaking table. ;)

[lefador]

168. Indeed....

The tragic thing is that she did not need to say what she said to begin with. But by opening her pie hole she put the Dems at a significant strategic disadvantage, and that was within hours of the Dems gaining the majority. Next she went on rambling on what a great American the President is, and how Mr. Bush's father is a true American hero, a national treasure. Thus making the hole she had just dug even deeper...

But hey, I am sure that she and her merry pals have a super duper double secret plan, hang in there. See they just act incompetent and weak so that the GOPers get all confident, and next thing you know in 2050... We strike when they least expect it. Too bad we all be dead or imprisoned by then! But hey, what's a few years when the country is going down the drain, one day the wisdom of Pelosi et al will be reveal to us mere mortals! I just hope it happens within my lifetime, I am just honored to be in the presence of such greatness... LOL

[thereismore]

119. How the f//hell did the repigs do it again? Organic process my butt. nt

[defendandprotect]

121. NY Times editorial today called for impeachment of Gonzales if we didn't get a Special Prosecutor --

[Senator]

134. Still Patently False (An Object Lesson)

Yes, I realize this statement was torn from its context and that Nichols only meant it in the most narrow sense to support his broader point. But, as posted, it still makes a good example of the kind of euphemistic, false beltway memes that provide a rhetorical shell of dismissive resistance to even serious consideration among the impeachophobes.

The reality is that we have no idea if Pelosi or Conyers can "make impeachment happen" or not. Taken literally, of course they/we need others to participate. But what would the consequences be if one or both of them publicly stated that impeachment of bushcheney "can and should happen -- that it is necessary to achieve accountablility and properly defend the Constitution" then pledge to try get it done??

I think it's pretty clear that would go a long way, if not all the way, to "make impeachment happen."

We do know that they're not trying to make it happen. And we know their "reasons" are less than persuasive -- otherwise there'd be no movement against their inertia. We must all be ready to challenge/combat statements such as this, torn from context or not, and refocus any and all discussions on more tangible realities of what we know and what can/must be done.

It is the best mechanism we have to turn inaction based on vague fear into action based courage of convictions.

--

[puebloknot]

135. Agreed. And standing for law and justice has historically very often...

... been a *partisan* undertaking.

True cliche: Those who lie down with dogs rise up with fleas.

[mzmolly]

151. John Nichols meant what he said. There is no "other" way to take this remark.

As for context, there is nothing about his statements that contradicts what is posted above. NOTHING. If you have a quote, post it.

The reason I posted the comments made by Nichols is because he has been criticalof Pelosi and co. and such is credible to most of us here on this issue.

Now, if YOU would like to pretend that he didn't "mean" what he said above feel free.

[smiley_glad_hands]

138. Now go protest Republicans, Cindy. eom

[defendandprotect]

140. What we have been saying is that PELOSI IS BLOCKING IMPEACHMENT . . .. .

That is something quite different from your statement --

Putting a HOLD on something is essentially different -- and that's where we are with Pelosi.

[mzmolly]

148. Pelosi can not "block" impeachment.

That's what "we've" been saying.

[Virginia Dare]

162. Precisely, any member of Congress can bring a..

resolution of impeachment before the floor. Nobody can stop it. It would then be referred to the Judiciary Committee. They would have the option of blocking it, or referring it for a full House vote.

[TreasonousBastard]

141. Absolutely-- I've been saying this all along, and...

the last ting we want is an impeachment like Clinton's-- where we simply look foolish and vengeful and don't get rid of him after all.

It took a long time to get rid of Nixon, and it was done member by member until the path was clear.

[John Q. Citizen]

143. Yes Nixon took about four months to the vote for impeachment. Shorter than we've had congress

[mzmolly]

147. John we don't have a deep-throat or our own John Dean.

If only we did ...

[John Q. Citizen]

153. We have video. Lots of it. Why don't you ask John Dean? He's says impeach now not later.

Course you probably have "feelings" which trump his expertice and experience with impeachment...

[mzmolly]

163. It's not about my "feelings."

it's about getting the American people on board.

As I've said, I wish we had our deep-throat, our John Dean, our criminal inquiry, our salacious news paper articles trickling in each week keeping Americans glued to the drama ... but we don't

What we have is a group of former Nixonites advising * who have learned the lessons of history.

On edit, we too must learn from History and continue to go after this administration.

[John Q. Citizen]

169. The American people are on board, can't you feel it? Heck they are getting arrested trying to

move the obstructionists in the US congress to do their duty.

All over the country.

Look at how many cities, states, counties, have passed impeachment resolutions.

Have you called Conyers or Pelosi yet? Or are you one of the foot draggers on the process?

[mzmolly]

171. I've made calls, I've signed petitions.

As to the public being on board:

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

I do believe we're getting there.

[John Q. Citizen]

178. Compare those numbers to the Nixon numbers and you will see we are already there. Luckily,

during Nixon, we didn't have a Speaker of the House who took impeachment off the table, or a Judiciary Chair who announced the next elections to be more iumportant than the constitution, or Nixon would have surely finished out his term.

[mzmolly]

181. The Nixon related criminal investigation began two years before articles of impeachment were

brought.

However, I'm curious about the impeachment polls during the Nixon era, I've love to see them. Do you have a link?

Here's some info on the Nixon time-line:

Events Leading to Impeachment:

A break-in occurred on the night of June 17, 1972, as five burglars entered the Democratic National Committee offices inside the Watergate office complex in Washington. Discovered by 24-year-old night watchman Frank Wills, they were arrested at the scene by police at 2:30 a.m.

...

February of 1973, the U.S. Senate established a Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin, to investigate all of the events surrounding Watergate other allegations of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of Nixon's re-election.

...

The Senate Select Committee began televised hearings on May 17, 1973. A month later, former Presidential Counsel John Dean testified there was an ongoing White House cover-up and that Nixon had been personally involved in the payment of hush money to the five burglars and two other operatives involved in planning the Watergate break-in.

...

The tapes then became the focus of an intensive year-long legal battle between all three branches of the U.S. government. In October of 1973, Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had been appointed by the Nixon administration, publicly vowed to obtain the tapes despite Nixon's strong objections.

This resulted in the "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20 in which Nixon attempted to fire Cox -

...

The new Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who had been appointed by the Justice Department, pursued Nixon's tapes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, the Court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to surrender the tapes.

On Saturday, July 27, 1974 the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. Six of the Committee's 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article. The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

It took more than one year from the time of Dean's incriminating testimony to approve articles of impeachment.

[John Q. Citizen]

207. Here's a link:

President Nixon may well have sensed that his public support was continuing to fall dramatically when he decided to appear on television and release edited transcripts of the Watergate tapes last week. Shortly before the President's announcement, Daniel Yankelovich, Inc., completed a poll for TIME showing that the percentage of Americans who wanted Nixon to resign or be impeached had jumped to 55%, from 39% last November and 30% last August (see accompanying chart). The results indicate that those who wanted to see Nixon out of office clearly would prefer that he resign rather than be impeached. If the President fails to resign, however, the people in the latest poll would be almost evenly split between impeachment (43%) and the President's staying in office (44%); 13% were not sure.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908574,00.html


SO Chaney is waaaaay over that. Notice the top is resign or be impeached and the 43% to 44% is even lower (though not statistically relavent) than the 44% to 43% in favor of bush being impeached. ANd that was after two years of a special prosecutor, indictments against multiple white house aides, ect in the Nixon removal.

Why the Dems are sitting on their hands on this now is unfathomable.

We already have many good/honest/and legitamate articals to bring against chaney and bush. We have the public way beyond where they were with Nixon.

What's the matter with the Democrats? What's Pelosi's problem?

[mzmolly]

211. Compare the polls to the timeline below.

You'll see a direct connection between the investigation/hearings and the erosion of faith in Nixon.

Daniel Yankelovich, Inc., completed a poll for TIME showing that the percentage of Americans who wanted Nixon to resign or be impeached had jumped to 55%, from 39% last November and 30% last August (see accompanying chart).

Nixon and Cheney are in a proverbial dead heat. ;)

But to the matter of impeaching Cheney, the President is in charge, I'd rather not settle for an unpopular fall guy that will absolve the rest of the Republican Party unless we have to.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

[leftofthedial]

159. I am a fan of John Nichols

BUT

the Clinton impeachment was a textbook exercise in exactly the opposite of what Nichols claims incorrectly about how the process works.

leadership still applies and Pelosi et al aren't providing leadership on this issue

[mzmolly]

164. I think he's talking about how the Constitution was designed?

At least, that's how I took it. :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

170. that's my point

the Constitution allows for an impeachment process in the House that is essentially no different from passing a bill. Effective leadership by the majority should make it a no brainer in the House.

The Senate, being the "deliberative body," (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!) and being the epitome of the DC establishment, is another story.

[mzmolly]

172. I think the term effective is what is subjective?

I believe that Pelosi and Conyers are interested in impeachment, but they are not wising to appear over zealous. They want to conduct the job of oversight and educate the public. They want to encourage mass cries for justice, while claiming the high ground.

If I didn't believe that, I'd be plenty pissed right now.

[leftofthedial]

173. I think they are running out the clock

and don't want to rock their comfy DC boat.

[mzmolly]

174. Then they better prepare to sit in their comfy

chairs at home. ;)

[lefador]

166. Denial... it is not only part of the Republican agenda.

It is sad to see the self delusion of so many people, which is part of the reason why we are in the shit-hole we have found ourselves in.

But hey, whatever floats your boat guys... god bless yer souls. It is sad to see what passes for Left in this country nowadays.

[mzmolly]

167. Most of us agree that we must impeach.

What we don't agree on is the timing and the approach.

I agree that it's amazing "what passes for the left these days." We have people like Nader and other Libertarians claming to "pass" for example.

[lefador]

175. Gee wiz, it is all Nader's fault...

It is sad to see people like lumping Nader and Libertarians together.

And before you let me know how a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, may I remind you how a vote for Gore was also a vote for Liberman? The reason why Gore lost in 2000 is that Democrats couldn't get their act together and Diebold. And as long as the Dems continue making tangential excuses, i.e. the big bad wolf Nader, they will continue to prove that they still can't get their act together. Oh, and the voting infrastructure is still a mess, even after two less that transparent general elections. So please, let's keep being in denial... it is all the fault of the dude who fought to make seat belts mandatory!


BTW, regarding timing... I am sure that when Democrats find their house on fire, they will most certainly argue about what is the best bet timing for employing the fire extinguisher. But not after a committee is formed in order to decide who should call the fire department, which should be formed right after the committee to decide when the fire department should be called, has reached a conclusion. Afterwards, a board will need to be assembled in order to draft a possible call to the fire department. Once the language in the draft has been deemed to be grammatically correct, it is then refined to make sure it does not offend anyone. The draft will then become the guide to be used by the caller, also the caller must make sure that his tone is not deemed to harsh or panicked as to not burden the sensibilities of the person in the dispatch center attending the 911 call. Also the Democrats will have to form a commission to investigate how come the house burned to the ground when the call to the fire department was placed days after the fire begun.

Anyways, I saw the writing in the wall when I noticed that most of Clinton policies were to the right of Nixon, and when Democrats left the GOP frame the debate and make "liberal" a bad word. I am not particularly interested in compromising my position as a liberal leftist, so if the Democrats want to go further to the right, so be it... They should however quit expecting liberals to support them by default.

[mzmolly]

176. Ah ha,

I knew it. I can smell em' a mile away. :hi:

[Raster]

183. I just love how you cherry-picked the portions of the article that suited your means.

Here's my pick (bold emphasis mine):

"Of course, the Democrats are saying no such thing. Instead, they talk about getting on with the important business of the Congress, and not wasting time on impeachment. The argument that impeachment would be a time-waster is, according to Nichols, “bullshit.” He points out that the same Congress that impeached Richard Nixon accomplished a great deal, in terms of dialing down the Vietnam war, raising the minimum wage, passing environmental legislation, and making other important, progressive gains.

“The idea that taking up impeachment will keep us from acting on health care, gay rights, etc., is ahistoric,” Nichols says. “The fact of the matter is that during the impeachment of Nixon back in the 70s, the reason Congress was so effective and got so much done was that Nixon was scared and, in a calculated move, started cooperating with Congress to avoid impeachment. So the right thing to do is move immediately–see what you can get out of Bush.”

For that theory to win the day, the pressure on Congress from voters has to continue to grow.
----------

Pelosi declared impeachment was "OFF THE TABLE." Pelosi deemed to override the natural rule of law.

One or two persons certainly cannot bring about impeachment, however it sure seems like they CAN SHUT IT DOWN!

Wake up America!:kick:

[mzmolly]

185. I don't disagree with what is stated above from the article. But, the point is not moot regardless.

However, I disagree with your assertion that anyone can "shut it down."

[John Q. Citizen]

188. The House Speaker controls the agenda. She most certainly can shut it down,

single handedly, by not allowing a vote.

that's the power of the Speakership.

Did you believe it was just a cerimonial title?

[mzmolly]

191. I believe in the power of the people, however -

from what I've read, Conyer's can investigate and send articles to the floor, Pelosi can't block that process, nor do I believe she wishes to.

[John Q. Citizen]

200. If she doesn't schedule a floor vote, there is no floor vote. - She can in fact

block it, if she so desires.

I assume she does want to block it, if it came to that, or she wouldn't say that impeachment is off the table. That means it's off the agenda, and the speaker sets the agenda.

She may choose at some point to put it back on the agenda.

[mzmolly]

205. That's not what I understand John.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1466582&mesg_id=1471004

I'm out, you may have the last word as I've had far to many in this thread. ;)

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

210. Is that your idea of documentation? OK now I get it. Usually I can smell them a mile away,

but you had me fooled.

See ya!

[mzmolly]

214. No that's not my example of documentation, that was a quick summary in this thread.

John you're not beneath a polite reply are you? I offered you the last word and you took the low road, sorry, but I had to respond. Kucinich is apparently aware of law as well given he has filed articles against VP Cheney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401542.html

QUESTION: Pelosi says it's not going anywhere.

KUCINICH: ... as much as I admire the speaker, as much as I voted to support her, I feel that it's my obligation as a member of Congress to introduce these articles of impeachment. And I believe the American people will be the final arbiters as to whether or not these articles should go forward.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

Quick documentation here: ... To begin, the House of Representatives refers the investigation to its Judiciary Committee, which reviews the evidence and may conduct hearings. It determines whether an official impeachment inquiry is warranted and, if so, asks the House for permission to proceed. An official investigation follows, with the Committee deciding whether to offer articles of impeachment to the full House. The House then votes separately on each of the articles, with a simple majority needed to impeach the official. Articles of impeachment approved by the House are then presented to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate for trial.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

More: Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!

Now if you can remain polite, I'd be glad to allow you that "last word" again? Also, if you have documentation supporting the fact that Nancy Pelosi can "block" the process noted above, I'm all ears.

I'll check back later, much later.

[John Q. Citizen]

187. Yep, the OP certainly did cherry pick and she has been called on it repeatedly. She

isn't above distortion to try to make her point.

[mzmolly]

190. I'm sorry if this information pisses you off.

But the quote is an exact quote, something we didn't get from Swanson regarding John Conyers in his
jaded "recap" about the Conyers meeting. What I find interesting is that so few of you who condemn the actual quotes above even asked for any quotes from David Swanson on the Conyers situation. You all took is version and ran with it.

I am limited to four paragraphs when posting here, I like others, chose the four that illustrated my point. I'm sorrry if it doesn't jive with the Cindy circus version, but it is what it is.

John Nichols is a knowledgeable leader on the issue of impeachment, I would suggest that those who seek to "use" him appreciate his comments/knowledge in full.

I'm glad I rattled the cage however, as that's what I intended to do.

Peace

[Raster]

193. My point, mzmolly, is not if they can or can't singlehandedly bring about impeachment...

I am more concerned about Pelosi's capability to SHUT IT DOWN! That Pelosi has not pursued impeachment is indeed a concern, but the horrifying aspect is the lengths she has gone to hinder anyone else from pursuing impeachment. More than half of this country now outright favors impeachment. It is not Pelosi's right to declare it off the table. Coward or collaborator?

Wake up America!:kick:

[mzmolly]

196. She deserves critique for her "off the table" comments.

However keep in mind that she has also said: Impeachment is not the goal of investigations, but we never know where they will lead.

She has not said under no circumstances, she has said "let's see where investigations lead."

Peace

[BuyingThyme]

186. Stupid comments. The question is not whether or not they can make it happen;

it's why the hell did Pelosi prevent it from happening.

Don't buy into this kind of silly nonsense. Think for yourself and don't let professional liars fuck up your brain.

[Raster]

194. Thank you!

Wake up America!:kick:

[dardango]

189. PELOSI CAN...

do this, but I have a feeling she's promised the boys at Lockheed and others who donate to her campaign "no rough stuff".



DemocracyInteractive.com - A Real-Time Progressive Free Speech Zone

[LSK]

195. maybe she can use Lockheed funds to bribe the other Dems?

:sarcasm:

[John Q. Citizen]

202. They pass a lot of cash around through leadership pacs. Yep, they do.

[camusrebel]

217. The time for , "I've made calls, I've signed petitions"

is over. On Friday i spent a few hours on the street in front of my Reps office with a sign that said, "Impeach Cheney/Demand your Rep sign H.R. 333" on the back it read, "Cummings has not signed". The positive response was overwhelming. It was an intersection with long lines of traffic stopped at lights. So many honks, thumbs up, shouts of "right on" etc. And the foot traffic, omg....so many questions from people assuming they would have heard that 15 Reps have already signed on to impeach cheney from mainstream "news".

If all you keyboard jockeys would do the same, investigations would start early september, and as the slime oozed out and heinous criminality exposed.....we would "have the votes" and deadeye dick would be behind bars by Thanksgiving.

Do it NOW!! TODAY!!! Get in the street, do a sit-in if you have the courage, picket, go door 2 door. The point is WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF WAITING. Any day now could bring Iran's "Gulf of Tonkin" moment. Then martial law and their long wet dreamed of police state. If you don't believe it read the Presidential Directive 51 signed on May 9 and the Executive Order signed July 17. They are not waiting around to see what happens. They are taking action to demolish our democracy.

It is time to FIGHT! Get in the streets DEMANDING your Rep sign HR 333 or explain to your grandchildren in a few years how when you saw this facist dictatorship coming, all you did was type in an impotent online debate defending the cowardly appeasers claiming the time wasn't right

[Raster]

218. Welcome to DU camusrebel!!! You are among friends. And you are right!

The time for "business as usual" is OVER! I proudly feature a "NO W" sticker on my car next to an "IMPEACH bush* and cheney*" bumpersticker. On the weekends I live in my "Impeach bush* and cheney*" t-shirt. And I see how uncomfortable it makes some and I see just how many smile and give me a thumbs up. These bastards should have been in prison long ago. ANYONE who aids and abets bush* and cheney* and this Vichy Congress is a coward or a collaborator, or both! And yes, I paint with a damned broad brush. And that still is not enough. Perhaps it's time to break out the power sprayer!

And I still call my representatives. Today I made yet another call to rethuglican Dave Reichert and reminded him he swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the rethuglican party!

Wake up America!:kick:

[John Q. Citizen]

220. I'm with you brother! Come bring some of that activist energy to

our forum here. It's the Impeachment group. Networking and action, no debates as to when or if.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=401

[cgrindley]

213. Impeachment would be pointless

where is the 2/3 majority in the Senate going to come from when we cannot even trust LIEberman to give us a simple majority... besides... isn't whathisface from wherever still in a coma... all impeachment would do would be to make us look as bad as the repukes looked when they impeached Clinton.

[Raster]

219. WRONG! Impeachment would begin the discovery process and allow Americans

to see the evidence. This "we don't have the votes" bullshit, is JUST THAT! And make no mistake, EVERYONE knows what motivated Clinton's impeachment--a partisan group of Congressional thugs. Trying to compare Clinton's impeachment circus to proceedings against bush* and cheney* is preposterous.

Wake up America!:kick: