We all support impeachment. But here's my problem with "impeach right now no matter what" people

[jpgray]

1. They feel it is irrevocably "right" to attack on all fronts all the time.

They don't care whether attack on the impeachment front will be effective, counterproductive, or anything else--it's just the "right" thing to do. They get pissed off when people even -discuss- issues like feasibility, possible results, risks, etc.

2. They have no consideration for what may occur in an aftermath of failure.

They have no plan for carrying the impeachment to a successful conclusion, beyond some vague idea that impeachment proceedings will bring all the malfeasance to light, and, like a Court TV 30 minute drama, suddenly force all guilty parties to a swift conviction. Considerations such as what will happen to ongoing investigations after a failed impeachment, what will happen to GOP solidarity after a failed impeachment, etc, are again feared and despised by the "impeach RIGHT FUCKING NOW" crowd.

3. They don't have ears for any evidence that suggests caution or patience. They only want to hear evidence that argues for immediate action.

Lack of votes, lack of evidence, lack of ability to secure crucial documents, the possibility of "politicizing" on-going investigations, the wisdom of Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, et al--none of this is considered or discussed among these folks because it goes against their goal. They are only interested in discussing or hearing evidence that supports their goal of immediate impeachment proceedings.

4. They accuse all those who disagree, even slightly, of being unpatriotic traitors.

This one is really offensive to me, especially since it divides those who are in agreement on impeachment being necessary (Conyers-Sheehan being just one depressing split). A small disagreement on whether impeachment is the best choice -right now- shouldn't carry with it accusations that the person in slight disagreement is a traitor who pisses on the Constitution every night. As always, it's not a black and white issue with one position being "right" and all criticism, however slight, being evil.

---

Why does this all concern me? It's the exact atmosphere of exclusive, bullying, selective reasoning that led to the Iraq War. Review my four points again with that in mind, and you'll see the similarities. Sometimes it's not the best idea to attack all the time on all fronts, because you may be exposed, surrounded, trapped, and beaten. That may not be true in this case--impeachment now! might be a better plan than more cautious plotting. But I'd say the risks and the feasibility at -least- warrant more consideration than the tantrum-throwers have been displaying. We all support impeachment, but let's do it -right-. Let's have a successful impeachment rather than an empty symbolic gesture.

edit: I understand that such unyielding extremism is a necessary tool for activists, but isn't this a discussion board? Do we need to be unyielding and dismissive of other opinions -here-?

[Fresh_Start]

1. K&R

Yes, they blindly believe that a virtually assured failure at impeachment is the right thing to do.
Where have we seen that behavior before?

Oh, the fundies with the abstinence only sexual education.

Wishful thinkers exist on both sides of the spectrum

[terrya]

2. 2nd recommendation

No message.

Thank you.

[grasswire]

3. have you watched...

...the PBS segment of Bill Moyers, John Nichols and Bruce Fein on impeachment? Please say yes or no.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Impeachment Is Ultimately A Political Act

In the final analysis it comes down to are there thirty four senators who will vote against removing Bush from office... A GOPU senator will not vote to remove Bush* from office unless he puts his job in jeopardy by not doing so...

[jpgray]

10. No, but I have it taped. Does he outline feasibility, risks, possible results?

Or does he just make the case that it is necessary? (Which, of course, it is.) I love Bill Moyers.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Just watch it and you can answer your questions for yourself. It's also available

online at the PBS website.

[grasswire]

71. I'll listen to your arguments after you've watched it.

Because an extremely strong case is made for impeachment now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Do you watch CSPAN?

I am watching in disbelief right now while the House debates whether to give bush (and Gonzo) the right to spy on anyone they decide is a "terrorist".

And our senators think this man should be able to spy on "terrorists" with virtually no oversight. The same man whose administration kidnapped innocent people and locked them up at Guatanemo and tortured prisoners in Iraq.

You bet there is a sense of urgency. Last week, bush signed an executive order giving him the right to order the treasury to seize the assets of any individual who interferes with the "peace" in Iraq. In May, he signed an executive order giving him the right to declare martial law whenever he wants.

In the meantime, an Iraqi dies every 10 minutes and a US soldier dies every 10 hours in an illegal war. We spend $720 MILLION a DAY in Iraq!!

But we are supposed to be patient and wait?? Tell that to the next family who loses a loved one in Iraq. Tell that to the next innocent person who is abducted and imprisoned by this administration.

These men should have been impeached a long time ago. They should be in prison by now.

So no, I am NOT willing to be patient. Not any more.

[jpgray]

6. We all feel that way. What does a failed impeachment do to solve any of that?

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. It takes his attention away from the damage he is wreaking on the world

He isn't smart enough to fight impeachment and play dictator at the same time.

[jpgray]

11. Just like the current Congress investigations? How would impeachment be any different than those?

He could still hold back documents under executive privilege, etc. He could still profitably ignore the proceedings and do what he likes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. You mean the ineffective investigations?

[jpgray]

18. Ah, so impeachment from the same Congress would be magically effective?

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. As I said before, when the American people see the evidence, they will DEMAND

impeachment. The Congress will have no choice. Every single member of the House is up for re-election in 15 months.

[jpgray]

35. How will they see any evidence that hasn't been produced in investigations already?

Again, do impeachment hearings have special powers? And if so, why did they wait to attempt the impeachment of Nixon until -after- his administration was already coming apart due to previous investigations? Isn't that inconsistent with your "impeach first, then investigate" plans?

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Yes, executive privelidge isn't a defense in impeachment hearings - See the Nixon

impeachment for the details.

AN impeachment inquiery is an investigation where executive privelegde can't be raised.

Also, the Congressional oversite function is shown on C-span. What do you believe there average viewership is?

An impeachment inquiery would be shown on the networks. What do you believe their average viewership is?

[eggman67]

65. You do understand that it takes

218 votes in the house to start an impeachment inquiry?

[John Q. Citizen]

72. Absolutely.

[eggman67]

75. Ok then, where are those 218 coming from?

For instance, those 40+ that voted to modify FISA, how do you figure they'll vote?

[John Q. Citizen]

80. I don't know how any member will vote, but the vote will be very useful to know where

members stand.

The congress holds votes on hundreds of resolutions every congress that don't pass.

Is that bad?

[eggman67]

82. How many have this kind of significance?

What do you think would be the result of a failure of this type of resolution at that level?

What would be the benefit and what would be the detriment in your opinion?

I'm going to bed now, so I'll check tomorrow.

[MonkeyFunk]

87. Do you have a citation for that?

As I recall, in US v Nixon, the executive privilege claim was rejected when claimed against a special prosecutor (Leon Jaworski). The SC ruled that executive privilege was not an absolute claim in defense against a subpoena enforcing criminal statutes.

An impeachment committee is not enforcing criminal statutes.

I don't think you're right that executive privilege cannot be raised in an impeachment investigation - at least I don't think any court has ruled that way.

[MonkeyFunk]

100. This is at least the third time

somebody has claimed that the magical impeachment fairy grants special powers, and I've asked for a citation without any response.

[creeksneakers2]

106. I think impeachment gives the strongest case

for legislative need. Legislative need is required in court to overcome the privilege.

I agree with you that impeachment doesn't bar the president from claiming executive privilege, or taking his claim to court. It just makes the case from Congress stronger.

[MonkeyFunk]

111. well

i think that would be a good argument to make in court, but has any court ever ruled thusly? I don't know of any such instance.

[creeksneakers2]

114. No. There is no case directly on impeachment/EP

Need is based on the what is necessary to carry out core legislative duties. The three possible duties are legislation,oversight and impeachment.

Legislative needs aren't as helpful for uncovering facts about prior wrongdoings. It can be argued that knowledge of prior events isn't necessary to formulate legislation, which is aimed at the future.

Oversight covers just about everything but its weak because oversight could be used to justify any encroachment, and would therefore negate the privilege.

For impeachment, past facts must be determined. Unlike oversight, impeachment is not something that happens all the time and could be used to endlessly interfere with the executive.

I wandered past your question because I want to post this whenever possible. I offered the executive privilege advantages while advocating the impeachment of Gonzales. It seems the instant impeachment crowd twisted that and continues to run with the twisted version.

[John Q. Citizen]

127. The Special prosecutor doesn't charge the President. The special prosecutor

acts as an agent for congress and turns over the product of the investigation to congress, should they be interested in impeaching, as happened in the Watergate case. If congress chooses not to delegate the investigation and instead conducts the investigation into crimes against the constitution themselves, why in that case would executive privelidge suddenly apply?

The appointment or non-appointment of a special prosecutor is irrelevant.

if bush tried to obstruct justice by attempting to block testimony to an impeachment inquiery, that in itself could be an impeachable offense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Don't Mind Impeachment...

It would be a good circus like the Clinton impeachment...

It came down to the Dems voting for their guy and most Pugs except a few righteous ones voting against him...

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I think this time would be far different

There are so many impeachable offenses this time. With Clinton, there was how many?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Why Would The Same People You Are Saying Are Enabling Bush Vote To Remove Him?

Do you see the contradiction?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I believe that as soon as the American people see the evidence

(and the only way they will see the evidence is for the hearings to be held, thanks to our ineffective media) they will rise up and demand these men be impeached. And no republican who wants to be re-elected in 08 will vote against the will of his/her constituents.

[jpgray]

16. Why would any more evidence be produced than in the Congressional investigations?

Are impeachment proceedings magic? Do they force the administration to cooperate in ways the investigations don't? In modern examples (such as Nixon), the administration was already tottering from investigations that happened -before- impeachment proceedings were initiated. Don't you have things the wrong way round? It's investigate, -then- impeach.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Plus Bushco Gets To Mount A Defense...

The Clinton trial took about eight month and the process was expedited in the Senate because Majority Leader Lott knew he didn't have the votes...In fact Lott said to Hyde and the impeachment managers that he was pissed they "dumped this shit" in his lap...

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. They are televised

I was as alert as anyone could be during the Watergate fiasco. But even I learned new things during those televised hearings.

[jpgray]

34. Nixon's administration was falling apart at the seams from prior investigations already

How is that consistent with the situation Bush is in?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. If There Was A Plebiscite

What percentage of Kansans would vote for removing Bush from office?

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. Why would I know that?

It's also a trick question. Today, without the full knowledge of the crimes of the bush administration, how many people in any state would vote to remove bush and cheney?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. It Wasn't Intended To Be A Trick Question

GOPU senators will not vote to remove Bush* unless they jeopardize their own job by not doing so... I submit you could not find five GOPU votes in the Senate to remove him... In fact there might be 67 votes against conviction rather than 67 votes in favor of conviction...

Plus, Bush gets to mount a defense ...It took eight months or so for the Clinton trial and there was only a semblance of a trial...Bush* could easily, easily run out the clock by mounting a defense...

[EstimatedProphet]

36. What evidence? List it.

[MiniMe]

92. What evidence? While we know what he has been doing, there is

no proof because the WH keeps stonewalling every investigation and calling it a witch hunt.

[EstimatedProphet]

33. The problem is, the condition you are describing won't be solved by impeachment

Because impeachment isn't possible immediately, and would be worthless for slowing Bush down if it were.

There is ONE solution for what you are talking about. ONE.

[creeksneakers2]

105. You'll wind up waiting if the impeachment fails too. n/t

[Richardo]

9. Well thought out and nicely written - K&R

:patriot:

Hope it takes some of the vitriol out of the debate...

[John Q. Citizen]

21. I don't believe the "Off the Table" crowd understand impeachment or the people who support it.

1. They feel it is irrevocably "right" to attack on all fronts all the time.
They don't care whether attack on the impeachment front will be effective, counterproductive, or anything else--it's just the "right" thing to do. They get pissed off when people even -discuss- issues like feasibility, possible results, risks, etc.

Impeachment is a defensive mechanism. It is mentioned no fewer than 6 times in the US Constitution as a defense against an executive branch out of control. The "off the table" crowd believes we should put the defense of our constitution, and our country "Off the table."

2. They have no consideration for what may occur in an aftermath of failure.
They have no plan for carrying the impeachment to a successful conclusion, beyond some vague idea that impeachment proceedings will bring all the malfeasance to light, and, like a Court TV 30 minute drama, suddenly force all guilty parties to a swift conviction. Considerations such as what will happen to ongoing investigations after a failed impeachment, what will happen to GOP solidarity after a failed impeachment, etc, are again feared and despised by the "impeach RIGHT FUCKING NOW" crowd.

Defending the Constitution can never be construed as failure. Defending the country can never be construed as failure. Fear of defending the constitution, the country, and fear of the Republicans is the only failure.

3. They don't have ears for any evidence that suggests caution or patience. They only want to hear evidence that argues for immediate action.

Sitting on your ass doesn't defend the constitution or the country. It's just sitting on your ass.

Lack of votes, lack of evidence, lack of ability to secure crucial documents, the possibility of "politicizing" on-going investigations, the wisdom of Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, et al--none of this is considered or discussed among these folks because it goes against their goal. They are only interested in discussing or hearing evidence that supports their goal of immediate impeachment proceedings.

Lack of knowledge of the constitution and of law is not an argument. It is an admission of ignorance, nothing more. As you apparently don't know, Al Gore and Bernie Sanders don't have a duty or the legal ability to initiate impeachment. They have an opinion, sure, but so does everyone.

There is ample evidence that the Vice President threatened Iran with preemptive war. It's on video tape. That is an impeachable offense. There is evidence the VP stove piped intelligence to lie us into a war. That is an impeachable offense. There is much more evidence already of many more crimes against the constitution and the country.

An impeachment inquirey isn't subject to the claims of exectutive privelidge. An impeachment inquiery is a deliberate, thoughtful, and exhaustive investigation into getting to the bottom of the issue here - Is there evidence that the VP has committed acts against the constitution and the country? If we don't have this investigation, we will never know the answers to those questions. This investigation would be televised on the networks. It would be covered on all the cable news channels.

The "off the table crowd" apparently don't believe we have the time or inclination to answer those questions. Why not? I believe they are too afraid to find out the truth.

[jpgray]

29. Thank you for beautifully proving all my points in one post.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. You don't understand your own post? That's what I thought. i responded to

your post point by point, and you responded to my rebuttal with what you think is a "zinger."

Your intellectual failings are duly noted.

[jpgray]

48. Oh please. If you need a spoon-feeding, here you go

Impeachment is a defensive mechanism. It is mentioned no fewer than 6 times in the US Constitution as a defense against an executive branch out of control. The "off the table" crowd believes we should put the defense of our constitution, and our country "Off the table."

Where did I say I wanted impeachment off the table? Oh, nowhere.

Defending the Constitution can never be construed as failure. Defending the country can never be construed as failure. Fear of defending the constitution, the country, and fear of the Republicans is the only failure.

How does a failed impeachment defend the Constitution? If a failed impeachment makes things worse and gives the Bush administration -more- room to maneuver, how is that defending anything?

Sitting on your ass doesn't defend the constitution or the country. It's just sitting on your ass.

Again, what does a failed impeachment do? It does exactly as little as sitting on one's ass. Of course, your premise is a false one because investigating and issuing subpoenas is hardly sitting on one's ass. How does initiating impeachment magically provide more evidence to impeach than investigation? It doesn't.

Lack of knowledge of the constitution and of law is not an argument. It is an admission of ignorance, nothing more. As you apparently don't know, Al Gore and Bernie Sanders don't have a duty or the legal ability to initiate impeachment. They have an opinion, sure, but so does everyone.

There is ample evidence that the Vice President threatened Iran with preemptive war. It's on video tape. That is an impeachable offense. There is evidence the VP stove piped intelligence to lie us into a war. That is an impeachable offense. There is much more evidence already of many more crimes against the constitution and the country.

This is just pathetic. How is citing Sanders's and Gore's opinions evidence that I think they are responsible for initiating impeachment? It isn't, but why hold off on a cheap attempt to say I'm stupid, right? :eyes: And once again--how does a failed impeachment hold anyone accountable? One symbolic but toothless vote in the House and no convictions somehow holds everyone responsible?

An impeachment inquirey isn't subject to the claims of exectutive privelidge. An impeachment inquiery is a deliberate, thoughtful, and exhaustive investigation into getting to the bottom of the issue here - Is there evidence that the VP has committed acts against the constitution and the country? If we don't have this investigation, we will never know the answers to those questions. This investigation would be televised on the networks. It would be covered on all the cable news channels.

Okay, I've asked this a few times: what special powers does an impeachment inquiry have that regular Congressional investigations don't? Cite your source on that, if you don't mind. Your knowledge of inquiries is apparently limited--only -after- Nixon's administration was tottering from -investigation- was impeachment initiated. You don't start impeachment and then investigate.

So basically you answered none of my points, implied I was an unpatriotic coward for even bringing them up, and then claimed I was part of the "impeachment off the table" crowd even though I wasn't and am not. Who didn't understand?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. They is some bad peoples.

Today was incredibly bad timing on your part to post this screed. I do like your attempt to link 'they' with the Iraq war: "It's the exact atmosphere of exclusive, bullying, selective reasoning that led to the Iraq War." This kind of argument by non sequitor has a certain familiar ring to it.

[jpgray]

31. Wouldn't you say all the listed behaviors are consistent with the thinking that led to the Iraq war?

All the same refusal to consider possible outcomes, the berating of those who disagree of being unpatriotic traitors, the ridiculous rose-spectacled belief that all will go according to plan--aren't those all quite similar? The palpable denial to consider that a failed impeachment right now could have serious risks, -empowering- the Bush administration rather than holding it to account, seems extremely dangerous to me. Just impeach and assume everything will go fine! What a great idea.

[madokie]

39. I'm not sure I understand where the empowering bush* part comes from

[jpgray]

41. Have you read Bernie Sanders's views on impeachment?

I'd wager he knows about politics than, say, you.

[madokie]

45. you reckon

:rofl: sorry I just had to laugh

[jpgray]

55. :-) I don't know for sure! But I trust Bernie not to be a coward Constitution hater

[John Q. Citizen]

46. So you are in agreement that Sanders shouldn't introduce articles of impeachment?

[jpgray]

49. Sanders is a Senator.

The House impeaches, the Senate convicts.

[John Q. Citizen]

54. As I said, we agree that Sanders has no duty to initiate impeachment.

[dolo amber]

119. Whaaaaaaat??!!

:wow:

[Warren Stupidity]

42. No. 'They' are not spouting total bullshit.

Your list was crap anyway.

[jpgray]

51. Thanks for continuing to prove my list is exactly correct

[John Q. Citizen]

43. Your analogy is seriously flawed. For one thing, Pre-emptive war is offensive,

impeachment is defensive.

I know you can't grasp the difference, but I will still attempt to point it out to you.

A failed occupation hasn't hurt the bush administration, it has helped the administration.

If an impeachment inquiery is started, will we in impeachment for decades to come?

Just don't impeach, and assume everything will go fine. What a great idea.

[jpgray]

52. That would be fine, if I said preemptive war is the same as impeachment

It's the exclusive and combative thought process is the same--any and all critics of your goal are considered unpatriotic traitors, you refuse to consider the consequences of failed impeachment and have no real plan for success after the House introduces the articles, other than a magical belief that somehow evidence will be obtained that will convince all GOP senators to vote to convict.

[John Q. Citizen]

77. You don't have the facts, you are relying on leaders you trust to form your opinions.

Just as the people who were gung ho for the Iraqi invasion did.

Please watch the Bill Moyers show and then at least we will all be on the same page.

It may not change your opinion, but it will improve the quality of your argument.

[creeksneakers2]

107. I watched Bill Moyers

I'd love to see Bush kicked out on his ass but I didn't see anything on Moyers that showed me a successful impeachment can be launched presently.

[John Q. Citizen]

121. How about a successful attempt? Or a vote? You know, considering how unsuccessful

the Dems have been on a lot of other things, I'm surprised that you set the bar so high on impeachment.

Do you believe the Dems shouldn't have taken the vote on timetables? Or do you believe the Dems shouldn't have subpoenaed Karl Rove or Condi or all the other people they have unsuccessfully subpoenaed?

I haven't seen your posts stating that.

What horrible fate do you believe would befall the the Dems if they attempted impeachment, yet failed to remove?

Both the guests on Bill Moyers were in favor of impeachment whether it ultimately resulted in removal or not, they made some very good arguments about that. Which of their arguments do you dispute?

[creeksneakers2]

124. I'd love to see a successful impeachment

Four of the problems I have with an unsuccessful impeachment are:

(1)Bush is a criminal. He is part of a vast right wing conspiracy. They would not see a failed impeachment as a lesson or a warning. They would see a failed impeachment as proof that they are invincible. Just like the criminal who barely escapes with an acquittal, they'll reason - They came after me with everything they had and still couldn't get me. I have nothing to fear.

(2)If the bar for impeachment is set too low, the next time it could be the Republicans using it against us. I know they already did this with Clinton. I don't want to see impeachment become a regular part of our political system. It cheapens the meaning of elections.

(3)I hate seeing that spoiled punk bastard GW Bush winning.

(4) Impeachment would overtake everything else. The motives for any action after impeachment commences would be attributed to "getting George Bush."

[BlooInBloo]

27. It's exactly the same with the other side - lol. Funny how you don't mention that.

[asthmaticeog]

28. Kicked. Recommended. All that.

:thumbsup:

[EstimatedProphet]

30. No kidding

I have heard people here argue that they would rather have an impeachment now that fails, rather than get our case together and win! What the hell is the point in that?

The investigations that are going on right now are part of building the case for impeachment. We don't have a case otherwise. Impeachment fails otherwise, and there's no point in doing it.

[madokie]

32. man oh man

the precedence that would be set if we don't impeach these war criminals is where I don't want to go. sorry but you'll never explain it away. what part of these folks are crooks do you not get :eyes:

[jpgray]

37. I don't see how a failed impeachment holds anyone to account

Perhaps you could explain?

[madokie]

44. if you can't see that on your own I sure as hell can't help you sorry

to each his own is all I can say to you

[jpgray]

50. OK, explain it to me. What does a failed impeachment -do-?

[madokie]

56. NO you explain to us pro impeachment folk how you just know it would fail

this should be good

[jpgray]

57. List the Senators that would vote to convict

If it's not 66+, then it's a failed impeachment.

[madokie]

63. I guess evidence or a trial in the senate doesn't matter huh

I'm going to bed have fun with this

[jpgray]

69. Not if you don't have the votes, no.

[EstimatedProphet]

76. For the last time, we can get the votes in the Senate IF we build a good case!

But we need the investigations to build a good case!

[MonkeyFunk]

93. That hope is contrary to all evidence

I've seen absolutely nothing that convinces me Republicans would jump ship and vote to remove this President, no matter what evidence was presented.

[EstimatedProphet]

94. And given that, it is even less likely that they will without a solid case

Which is what my point is. IF impeachment is going to happen, it is only going to do so if it done correctly with a solid case, otherwise we will be wasting our time and giving the Repubs an excuse to bash us for the next 50 years.

On edit: so my point is that we have a chance with investigations of impeaching later, and NONE AT ALL if we go in tomorrow and start. I'll take the chance in the future over a grandstanding show...

[Vanje]

116. They did'nt have enough votes to impeach Nixon, either

I could go for a failed impeachment.

[onenote]

123. They had more than enough votes to start the impeachment inquiry. We don't

I'm not sure on what basis you make the claim that "they didn't have enough votes to impeach nixon" but the following is undeniably true: the resolution to authorize and direct the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry and consider articles of impeachment passed by a vote of 410-4. We probably don't even have a majority that would support taking such a step right now.

Re-writing history has become a bit too common on this board recently.

[eggman67]

86. Oh that's easy

Forget the Senate, they don't even have 218 votes in the House to start an inquiry!

[creeksneakers2]

108. I think you don't have an answer n/t

[mzmolly]

40. Thanks again jpgray.

These threads are never easy, but some of us must play the record through. :hi: That said, some pressing for impeachment now, are very thoughtful in making their case, H20man comes to mind. But, he's one of few that post here on the subject in a well thought out manner.

[mmonk]

47. Here's what I don't understand from the imaginary impeachment at some time crowd.

You are losing more and more of your constitution as time goes by to the most impeachable executive branch in history. They continue to break the law and change the law retroactively. Your position is not intellectually sound. You are listening to excuses of politicians.

[jpgray]

53. How does a failed impeachment protect the Constitution?

[John Q. Citizen]

66. Watch the Bill Moyers show. You say you have it. It will answer a number

of your questions.

It's difficult to debate with someone not up to speed on the constitutional issues.

It's not that long of a show. Go watch it and our discussion won't have to keep answering questions that you can easily answer fior yourself.

[jpgray]

68. Which Constitutional issues am I not up to speed on?

[John Q. Citizen]

74. The ones discussed in the show. Your questions show you aren't informed. Get

informed, and if your opinion is still consistent with your uniformed opinion, at least we will be discussing the same information and the conclusions derived fromn that information.

This reminds me of arguing Iraq with folks who think the accused hijackers were Iraqi. It's difficult to discuss an issue when one party is lacking facts.

[jpgray]

89. Why can't you explain which areas I'm wrong on? Is it impossible to say without the TV show?

[John Q. Citizen]

97. It's often not worth the time or energy to debate with the willfully ignorant.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

This will answer many of the questions you have. It's a lot more efficient than taking you step by step and post by post through the information.

I bet you have already spent far more time than the running time for the show on this thread already. Either you are interested in the facts, or you aren't.

[creeksneakers2]

109. I don't believe its about how much time you have

I think you don't have an answer for him.

[John Q. Citizen]

122. think what you want. I don't care. n/t

[mmonk]

102. An impeachment process would shed

light on what's going on. There is no light right now. There is capitulation. What this dictatorship wants, this dictatorship gets because the House doesn't slow a damn thing down. They slow nothing down. They are complicit they do nothing.

[jpgray]

104. How would it do that? How would it be any different than current investigations?

Nixon's admin was tottering from investigations already when impeachment inquiries were started. As MonkeyFunk and I have asked several times, what's the evidence that the Bush administration is magically -forced- to comply with investigations when impeachment hearings start? Where is that particular piece of law?

[mmonk]

129. Coverage not buried on C-Span.

The average Joe out there gets their information from the MSM. Anyway, go quietly into the night if you like but I'm not.

[Wiley50]

58. Problem? Sorry, don't have time for problems

" Hey, Anyone got a status report on when that guillotine will be ready?"

[jpgray]

59. If we're going to build the guillotine, I want to be sure it doesn't go to waste

I want to see it used. Building it just for kicks doesn't do much for me.

[JVS]

61. If you support impeachment, it has to start now or soon. There isn't much time left before the...

elections are in full swing and that would make it more difficult for it not to be portrayed as a political stunt. To say "wait until the right moment" at this point is akin to telling a kid that you'll take him to the library later when it is already getting close to closing time. Thus it should come as no surprise that people can see that later isn't going to work and are pissed off. They are correct to give those responsible as much shit as they can.

[jpgray]

64. I support a successful impeachment. A failed one doesn't do a damn thing.

The risks and results of a failed impeachment need to be carefully considered. If people just want a symbolic feel-good gesture, that's fine, but I'm not interested.

[JVS]

78. I'd like to know what kind of timeline you envision.

It may very well be that a successful impeachment is impossible. What would be so bad about trying though? No impeachment is a failure as well. Better to go down swinging than just laying back. Besides even a failed impeachment might be used as a way of improving our reputation and damaging theirs. Bush is not in the position Clinton was in as far as popularity is concerned, and charges brought against bush would be of a much more grave nature. If you're afraid that a failed impeachment would make bush into a hero, forget about it.

Now, back to the time. Time is running out. Your side of this debate says that wer don't have the votes. I have some questions for the "let's wait" group:

1. What is being done to get the votes needed?

2. Will these votes be available before 2009, at which point Bush returns to being a pumpkin and it's all moot?

3. If these vote will not be available before 2009, can we quit the charade of people saying that they support impeachment "but at the right time" when we know damned well that the "right time" is never going to happen?

4. Do you acknowlege that Bush's conduct is deserving of impeachment?

5. If so, why have you not started impeachment?

6. If you are not doing this merely because you fear political consequences, how do you reconcile this with your duties towards the republic?

[jpgray]

88. Good points. Here are my answers

1. If nothing is being done on that front, it should be. I know I've called my reps. As far as the Dems getting together votes, I don't know but can safely assume that they have sounded everybody out before making their statements on the issue. Whether people are actively being hounded to impeach or not by the leadership, again I don't know. I would like to think they were, but I doubt it. It's likely Kucinich or other like-minded folks are doing this.

2. This as to do with #1. I don't think it's likely. Conservative district/state Dems are likely afraid of alienating their voters, and the GOP doesn't want the most visible figure in their party to get taken down. So I doubt much will change in 17 months barring a revelation from current investigations.

3. I'm not convinced the right time "will never happen," since there are several ongoing investigations that could produce a clear-cut crime beyond any doubt. The warrantless wiretaps could establish many felonies demonstrably leading to the white house. I think given what's been uncovered already, that evidence could be enough to initiate impeachment in a short amount of time (say six months or the like).

4. Of course!

5. Because a botched, failed impeachment carries risks. To use a heavily flawed analogy, it's like being asked "do you want Saddam Hussein to remain in power?" No, but let's make sure our way of ousting him isn't going to create a host of other problems equal or worse to his remaining in power.

6. Political consequences are included in one's duty to the republic. If a disastrous impeachment attempt gives a lift to the GOP, we will again be unable to successfully oppose repugnant judicial nominees, vetoes, etc. which are also a significant danger.

[bettyellen]

98. what does bush have to gain by going through impeachment procedings?

" If a failed impeachment makes things worse and gives the Bush administration -more- room to maneuver, how is that defending anything?"

"a host of other problems equal or worse to his remaining in power."

i have never seen it adequately explained and i'm curious.
even if it failed, an impeachment proceding properly done, would have * on the ropes, defending himself using the same ole BS... i would hope the american people would learn what WE know about his abuses,,, and that some of that shit would stick.
the alternative doing nothing- would be appealing how? because we feel we could run a dog next Novemeber ands still win? I ain;t betting on that.

[jpgray]

103. Then why are Al Gore and Bernie Sanders, hardly Constitution-hating wallflowers, opposed to it?

Perhaps because, in Bernie's words, Karl Rove would have a field day with it. Handing the GOP a chance to rebuild solidarity through a failed impeachment is not something that should be done lightly. Investigating, incidentally, is hardly doing nothing. A failed impeachment could undermine those investigations, as the GOP could easily turn them into the media's beloved scripts of "partisan bickering," "witchhunt," etc. This at least bears consideration.

[bettyellen]

112. i'm not buying the field day... honestly in politics if accusations are made, they usually

harm the accused, not the accuser. whether we have dems willing to actually fight is another matter.
since most people don't actually stick around to find out if the accusations are true, bush could come out skunkified and quite chastened. People might actually find out about the signing statements, and some other things they seem ignorant about, and get pissed at their party.
i don;t see how this gives rove anything new to work with, everyone now knows the repugs are 100% partisan and proud of it. let's start from there and get the case out, anyway.
right now, we're giving it away by going along with the president's legislation and guess what, he's going to have a field day with that too.
so he's going to try no matter what's going on, politically. letting Rove call the tune is a no win, always... so why go there?
i do not want any investigations that are ongoing to be damaged, but as slowly as this is happening, i understand the impatience here. do believe it's the intent of some dems to run out the clock because they feel they don;t need this to win next november, so fuck it...and they hide behind the have patience "mob","crowd" , or whatever you crazy kids are calling yoursleves these days. i believe you are sincere in wanting to do this right, other people however want to do nothing at all. and you have to realize that's fueling this as well.

i haven't looked, has this thread devolved into another Cindynista, Libtard, Impeachbot hatefest? Gotta love all this creative name calling!

[jpgray]

117. Great points. Let's never forget I could be totally wrong about this

:D

The impatience is totally understandable, as is the extremism from an activist point of view (demand everything to get just a little). And yeah, there are people sincerely interested in trying to do the right thing who are hurling insults at each other. And yes, there are many Democrats from conservative states/districts (some with not even that fig leaf) who are not likely motivated by some sage "keep our powder dry" (:eyes:) wisdom. More than likely they are motivated by craven ambition and self-preservation. I don't know that for sure, but it seems likely. It is however irritating to see Democrats -lose- fights they can -win- and argue the "patience" angle. They did that on more than a few occasions and I can see why people's patience is running thin. On impeachment, however, I just don't see a scenario where the votes are there. Insofar as this pressure to impeach is pressure for too-slow Democrats to hold Bush accountable, I am all for it. When it becomes a strategic plan that doesn't consider risks, feasibility or the opinions of some smart and worthy politicians, I get nervous.

As far as accusations go, if we fail to prove our accusations or net a conviction, or even to win the necessary vote in the House, it will color the investigations, it will color the '08 race, and it will increase GOP solidarity. The GOP is falling apart trying to run away from W right now, and going after their party's most visible figure can't help but create a massive defensive effort. It's not good strategy to always worry what your enemy is going to do, but I have no doubt Rove and others will make a -lot- of hay out of any failed impeachment hearing. I know Sanders thinks so, and I think I can trust him to avoid "keep our powder dry" nonsense.

But as I said, I could be -completely- wrong. :) I just want people to consider it.

[bettyellen]

125. well i commend you for having the most civil thread on the topic, it's disheartening

to see so many people condesend instead of maybe like- talking it out, you know.
that said the main divide seems between people who feel a moral imperative to get to impeachment asap VS those who need to weigh everything through the glass of a big win for Dems next year. should those two positons really be at such odds?
when you through the "off the table" statement into the mix, well :nuke: it's like gasoline... okay that's three metaphores in two sentences, oooops.

i'm concerned about rove only to the extent that hill or obama gets the nod. i truly think he'll play the sexist or race card, while claiming we're playing that card, and thus making people feel okay abot their sexism and or racism again. that's rove at his best., and it scares me. :scared:

but i think we can't afford to worry about looking partisan, the voting record of our senate and the congress prove otherwise. we are not the locksteppers republicans are, and i think this partisan meme is psy ops stopping us from even thinking about a show of strength.

[eggman67]

62. Another part of it

is a complete misunderstanding of the process. They talk about how the impeachment inquiry will bring everything to light without comprehending the fact that they need 218 votes in the House to authorize the Judiciary committe to hold impeachment inquiry hearings. They don't even have that!

Sadly it seems that the only thing that would convince them would be for someone to introduce a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry and have it fail ignominiously thereby putting the matter to rest.

[jpgray]

67. Yep, but sadly it wouldn't be put to rest. The Dems would be blamed for failing to impeach

And around and around it would go.

[HEyHEY]

70. I always knew you were a troll!

[jpgray]

73. Maybe a sigpic of adorable arctic bears would facilitate these deep-cover ops

:hide:

[JVS]

79. yup

[HEyHEY]

84. We're gonna have to send some prostitutes after him

[JVS]

85. Don't forget to send Pimpbot 5000 too!

[Zomby Woof]

81. B--b- but!!! *sputter*!!! *foam*

No, I've got nothing.

I think of all your points, number two resonates the most with my thinking. With scarcely 17 months remaining in the sentence we're living under, impeachment may be the 'right' thing to do, and even if the desired outcome of convictions, removal, et al, could be achieved in that relatively short span, it would hobble or impede equally pressing matters - ending the Iraq occupation, the housing/credit crunch (I have been watching this one closely lately), the infrastructure nightmare, and so on.

I posted a few weeks ago that the false choice being put out there by the "IMPEACH NOW!" mob is that if we're not for immediate impeachment proceedings, then we're not for impeachment at all, in principle or any other realm. We're complicit with Bush's crimes, and just spineless Dems who deserve a firing squad.

[EstimatedProphet]

95. I'm with you on that

And what strikes me in this debate is the lengths that people are going to. I saw someone post the other day that maybe the reason impeachment hasn't started yet is because Bush is threatening the Democrats a la Wellstone! They simply couldn't understand that impeachment is a lengthy process, and we are in the opening stages of it right now, with the congressional investigations! Since there wasn't a process named "impeachment" going on right this second, clearly Bush was blackmailing them all in some way!

[bettyellen]

99. are we actually getting any good legislation passed? is bush going to help average americans

who have credit problems all of a sudden- or didn;t he create them and is probably more intersted in making things worse.
from what i've seen, i think grinding to a halt is better than doing the political calculus that ends in bending over and taking it up the butt some more.

[creeksneakers2]

110. They passed student loan reform

that took excessive fees away from big money lenders and put the money back in the pockets of the borrowers.

They've expanded children's health care.

They've added lobbying reform and cut down on earmarks.

To name a few.

Sure, Bush will veto stuff, but not all of it. And when Bush does veto very popular programs, the GOP pays a price.

[bettyellen]

113. so this is all to make Bush look bad when he vetos it...so not more productive than

and same purpose as impeachment procedings.
that's what i thought when i looked at the stats on vetos. we are getting almost nothing done.
godh, maybe if they got people to really pay attention things might change. hmmmm..

[KoKo]

83. Ohhh, don't fret about it. No one is going to Impeach anyone...it's off the table.

[wiggs]

90. Sorry. Astonishingly ironic post, starting with title.

OP is more divisive, condescending, and inflammatory than unifying, healing, illuminating, and calming. Thinking you can lump pro-impeachment DUrs (isn't it about 95% of us according to a DU poll?) into four offensively defined groups is narrow-minded and involves so many leaps of logic and assumptions as to be...unworthy. Dividing us into pro-impeachment vs pro-right-now-impeachment is a false division also, I believe. I doubt one person on DU fits your four points and has as many as half of the characteristics you ascribe to these strawmen extremists.

Pro-impeachment is "unyeilding extremism"? Critics are "evil"?

[jpgray]

91. Actually, you can see evidence of most of my points in this thread alone

People who want to consider the risks and the aftermath or want to wait until investigations make the case stronger are told they don't care about the Constitution, they are accused of being against impeachment wholly, etc.

[Magrittes Pipe]

96. You are rational, and actual results matter more to you than asinine breast-beating.

Therefore, your post will go largely ignored.

[Guaranteed]

115. ROFL nt

[nickgutierrez]

101. Dead right.

I'm all for impeaching these people if it could actually get done, but they've done such a... I hesitate to say "good", a thorough job of keeping the president a few steps removed from the actual high crimes and misdemeanors that go on in his administration that it would be next-to-impossible to get 67 Senators to vote for a conviction. Remember, that number would have to include 17 Republicans, or 16 and Joe Lieberman, and remember that without a conviction, impeachment is probably going to be counter-productive.

[puebloknot]

118. It's just that the Dems are not attacking on any fronts -- any that aren't just pablum.

[bridgit]

120. 1, 3 & 4 are for me so similar as to form an alloy; my agreement is with 2...

and the inclusion of a #5 perhaps, though musing here upon 2 initially = sadly, most agreed!! i am not prepared to entertain the notion of an eternally/forever & always smirking g.w. bush even from beyond his departure if & when in the event he prevails as did Clinton, a turnaround i completely agreed with

here's the 5 you may consider including on some level, 5) i sometimes think that i'm the only one that understands just how out-maneuvered (call it apathy, atrophy, but there it is) the congress & the american people have been when considering this cheney/bush/rove/matalin admin, "impeach at all cost'ers" seem to have little or no idea how deep, how wide, how thick, how gnarly their roots truly are; how easily & completely republicans will ball up a dem leadership already unwilling to stand up and talk back in the face of even signing statements that tell them to sit down & shut up

for me it's 2, and the would-be 5

the world has been out snookered, it is time to dummy up

[Skidmore]

126. Sorry, but this was exactly the sort of situation for which the forefathers gave us the

tool of impeachment, not for blowjobs in the office. Extremism? No consideration for aftermath? What does this bunch have to do before they are stopped in your estimation? What other damage do they have to inflict on the nation and on its governance. I take it the status quo is just fine with you.

[jpgray]

132. How does a failed impeachment change the status quo?

[G_j]

128. come on

how can you honestly speak for people you find you must refer to as extremists. Your neat little analysis sounds more like a screed of condescending attacks than anything else: " They accuse all those who disagree, even slightly, of being unpatriotic traitors." really?
Who is accusing who of what here?

Thanks for the attempt at real communication?

not really.........:eyes:

[buddhamama]

131. yippee...

now this i can agree with. :)

[jpgray]

133. There's evidence of it right here in this thread

Take a look. Is the truth an "attack" to you?

[G_j]

134. ahh...

who wrote the OP again?
:shrug:

[cynatnite]

130. I agree with your first three...

and salute you on #4 :patriot:

No matter how much logic is used the 'impeach right fucking now' crowd will come down on anyone like a ton of bricks for not seeing it their way. I think it's safe to say that 99% of DU wants impeachment, but some of us do know what it takes for it to happen and believe that the likelihood of impeachment happening is about as likely as the repukes breaking from bush on Iraq. Ain't gonna happen no matter what the polls say.

Anyway, good post. :)