Impeachment does not have to "work"

[Tyler Durden]

Many (including Pelosi and Reid) keep repeating "WeDon'tHaveTheVotesWeDon'tHaveTheVotesWeDon'tHaveTheVotesWeDon'tHaveTheVotes"

Bullshit.

They may not have the votes to CONVICT, but the have the votes to pass the Articles of Impeachment. That happens in the HOUSE with the SENATE as court. WHO CARES that they may not CONVICT this criminal? There's PLENTY of time after he's out of office and there's always The Hague.

What is most important IS TO KEEP THIS MOTHERFUCKER TOO BUSY TO PUSH THE GOD DAMNED BUTTON.

They are getting read for "The IRAN Show," and what we need now is massive distraction. Keep the Pig Bush and his minions too damned busy to work any more mischief.

[mmonk]

1. I'm looking for a way for the press being forced to cover

all that it hasn't and a real impeachment inquiry is the only way I know of that will make them. I'm tired of my country resembling Pinochet's goverment instead of a government of the United States. Damn tired.

[judy]

2. Besides, it is a matter of upholding the law

it is like saying: "officer, I did not stop at the red light because I am late for an appointment". The law is you MUST stop at a red light, whether there are cars on the other side of the intersection or not, whether you are late or not, whether it is in your interest or not.

Everyone in Congress took an oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They MUST put impeachment on the table, over and over and over again. It's their duty and it is what the law demands. Period. It has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with taking seriously the office they were elected to.

I hate to be a curmudgeon, but it really upsets me that nothing seems to mean anything anymore, and people are getting used to living with horror and crime as if they were normal, as the language gets more and more twisted through media soundbites.

This is why I listen to Mike Malloy. He is constructing a constituency of people who keep track of the meaning of words...If you feel like you are going insane, it means you are probably keeping in touch with reality!
:mad:

[OzarkDem]

10. Failure to impeach sets a bad precedent

If an impeachment investigation isn't started and Bush & Cheney's crimes brought to public attention, it makes it that much more difficult to uphold the law in the future.

There are multiple charges that should be brought, quite an extensive list. Failure to begin an impeachment investigation frees up future administrations to commit the same crimes with impunity.

[SlowDownFast]

72. Excellent point. n/t

[EFerrari]

3. I agree. These bastards need the hand brake.

NOW.

[Tyler Durden]

7. These bastards need the AIR BRAKE.

18 wheels in full panic stop.

[Ravy]

4. If he is found not guilty by the Senate, will that weaken the ability

to extradite him if he is brought to trial by the Hague?

I honestly do not know the answer, but until I do, I don't want him tried where Republicans can declare him not guilty.

[Tyler Durden]

6. I believe a majority but non convicting vote is called "Failure to Convict."

But frankly, Serbia did nothing to Milosovic, or Ratko. Once that rat bastard (or any of his co-conspirators) set foot outside of the country, they come under international law. The U.S. DOES NOT HAVE TO UPHOLD ANY DIPLOMATIC STATUS FOR THIS PRICK.

Frankly, I don't care if the Senate convicts: I just want him and his "boys" too busy to commit any more crimes.

[Ravy]

8. I don't disagree with your reasoning, but

if somehow "double jeopardy" came into play and stopped his extradition to the Hague, then I would be really pissed.

I know it is wishful thinking that he will ever be held accountable, but he could avoid leaving the country. I would hope that future administrations would entertain the idea of extraditing him to stand trials for his crimes... again, wishful thinking.

[Vincardog]

14. Jepardy for Crimes agains humanity and WAr Crimes would not attatch

We impeach them all for lieing us into war; Violating the constitution spying of US citizens and violating the hatch act politicizing every US Government department.

What ever happens the Hague is available for torture and crimes against humanity (AKA killing 1 MILLION Iraqi civilians, Using illegal arms (Such as Depleted Uranium and other weapons of mass destruction).

[nvme]

38. double Jeopardy

Just a question wasn't the international court created for the
purpose of trying those who commit crimes against humanity,
when their home country's refuse to prosecute?

[TahitiNut]

24. No. The US is not a signatory to the Rome Treaty. Furthermore ..

... the ICC is a court of last resort! What that means is that its jurisdiction takes effect when any remedies in the offenders' own country are exhausted or ineffectual.

[immoderate]

30. The Constitution specifies that impeachment is not a criminal trial.

And punishment is limited to removal from office. It doesn't prevent criminal prosecutions except in the political sense of "he's suffered enough."

On edit: It works both ways. If we don't impeach, that could be a defense too.

--IMM

[WillyT]

5. AMEN !!! - K & R !!!

:bounce::kick::bounce:

[me b zola]

9. k&r

[warren pease]

11. It's too late to worry about having the god damned votes...

Keep in mind that this administration has never been called out on TV (which remains the sole or primary source of "news" for 92 percent of Americans) for its corruption, criminality, cronyism, chronically unconstitutional policies and confirmed cases of high treason.

I have a feeling that if the American people were actually allowed to hear even a partial list of the outrages perpetrated in their names and with their tax dollars, the votes to convict would miraculously show up in the form of ass-chewed Senators whose constituents have told them to vote for conviction or look for another job next election. And impeachment, even if ultimately unsuccessful, addresses three key issues that won't be dealt with any other way:


Slowing down the BushCo domestic and foreign policy agendas, which may well include imposing martial law and nuking Iran.

Providing accountability for unprecedented criminality, hopefully complete with life sentences at Abu Ghraib.

Sending a message to the Future Fascists of America club that we don't tolerate dictators.


These are serious issues and need to be addressed. And since nobody's showing up at the white house with a paddy wagon, impeachment seems to be the next best thing.

Ms. Nancy, uncle Harry -- who will rid us of these beasts? Unfortunately for you, your job descriptions set you both aside from all the rest of the unqualified, indecisive and cowardly people who routinely bow down to power. Fate has dumped the task into your laps and you can either try to do the best job you can, or get the hell out of the way so others with a bit more fire and outrage can do it for you.

Given your histories, we'll be accepting your resignations by phone from 10 to 6 all weekend, and during normal business hours next Monday through Friday.


wp

[Tyler Durden]

16. Hey Warren. Nice to see you.

I keep wondering if, as a Confederate Soldier said in a letter to the Confederate Congress:

"Excuse me, but is the government ALWAYS drunk?"

I see no other excuse for what is the stupidest comment I have ever heard come from Congress:

"Impeachment is off the table."

[warren pease]

17. Hi yourself, and...

...another of my favorite excuses is "impeachment would take time away from other important work," or some variation on that theme. What exactly is more important than removing and imprisoning the most repressive, blood-thirsty and corrupt executive branch this country has ever seen?

But they'd rather admit that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time, instead of making impeachment the centerpiece of the fucking table.

Drunk or on drugs -- that would explain a lot. Unfortunately, I suspect only a few of them are drug or alcohol addicts. The rest are simply incompetent, ineffective, scared or complicit. There really aren't any other choices.


wp

[Tyler Durden]

21. No arguments here, chum.

I am starting to believe that somehow we've elected the village idiot from every village in the country.

Bush will VETO anything they pass, so if they don't impeach, they are worse than impotent: they are idiots.

[warren pease]

137. Maybe more like the "village connivers..."

It takes a certain talent to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. I witnessed such a miracle recently when my Dem Congresswoman graced us with her presence for a town hall meeting. Virtually everyone who spoke excoriated congress for not impeaching Cheney and Bush, for continuing to fund the Iraq occupation and for avoiding their responsibilities to act as a restraint on this out-of-control pack of blood-drenched thieves.

Then there were questions about single-payer health care (nobody wanted to hear about "expanded coverage" or "universal insurance," as the top-tier candidates are always blathering about), domestic spying, dying civil liberties, habeas corpus, recent fascistic executive orders, a real independent 9/11 investigation... It was like an audio version of DU; everybody seemed to know all the dirt on BushCo.

And her responses were so polished, so accommodating, so vanilla... it was an admirable performance. She professed to be pro-impeachment, so I asked why she hadn't signed onto HR - 333. She responded that she preferred that impeachment, if it happened, proceed in an orderly fashion. I pointed out that that's exactly what HR - 333 proposes: co-signers, presented to the judiciary committee for a vote and, if passed, handed to Pelosi for a floor vote (talk about a losing proposition), and so forth. By the book, orderly as hell.

Oops. No time to answer. Next question, please.

And so it went for much of the hour, except when somebody asked about one of her pet projects, which enabled her to speak directly and avoid the bullshit for a couple of minutes.


wp

[H2O Man]

12. Nominated.

The rather shrill voices of anti-impeachment on DU tend to either be grossly uninformed, or simply have some other reason for attempting to convince us the strength is weakness, and lies are truth.

[papau]

13. I agree - K&R n/t

n/t

[snappyturtle]

15. K&R Impeachment is long past due. To the naysayers:

We've been discussing impeachment for a long time. During which we have seen more civil rights evaporate, lives lost and the treasury raided. It's only getting worse. The longer we wait...the more we lose.

[bbgrunt]

18. k & r--what you said.

[bvar22]

19. Business as usual!

NO IMPEACHMENT!!!
The Right Wing of the Democratic Party (DLC) would love to inherit the "Unitary Executive". After all, they helped build it. Their candidate is leading in the polls.

Impeachment would rock the boat. Americans might actually DEMAND that the system be fixed. Running out the Clock is much more attractive to those profiting from a Unitary Executive.
In 2009, they step in and keep the money machine going.

*More WAR
*More FOR PROFIT HealthCare
*More outsourcing of American Jobs
*More access to slave labor for Mega-Corporations
*LESS accountability to American citizens
*more FREE Trade
*more consolidation of POWER for Media (Murdoch loves Hillary)
*less regulation for BIG MONEY

Lets NOT rock the boat.
Just "SAY NO" to impeachment, and vote for Hillary!

[AbbyR]

20. Please please please impeach

I've been too busy with a new job to come around much, but had to add my two cents to this. If he isn't convicted, so what? Sure, I'd like to see him kicked out, but just keeping him occupied and getting the testimony out would be so refreshing. I am SO tired of Bush getting away with everything. It's time for some backbone from our side.

[KharmaTrain]

22. Impeachment Didn't Stop Clinton From Bombing Kosovo

If anything this regime may just invade Iran if there was any hint at an impeachment to distract the corporate media.

So it doesn't matter if this scumbag isn't convicted? Then what kind of impeachment is that? Slap georgie on the hand and send him to bed early? I'll never forget the night of Clinton's acquittal...Darrel Hammond on SNL doing his Clinton...stepping up to the mike and saying "I'm Bulletproof". So I guess you'd enjoy an encore with booshie saying the same thing?

I'd prefer to keep the asshat busy fighting vetos of bills (not that the Senate has the stones to do it)...is to defund this invasion and revoke the IWR. Force him to veto every piece of legislation that's waiting to be signed...from prescription drug reform to tuition credits to union representation and more. Just keep marginalizing this shit stain and make him less and less popular.

[omega minimo]

122. The Clinton Impeachment was BOGUS BULLSHIT and comparing this moment to that is a mistake

:thumbsdown:

[Baby Snooks]

23. Forget it...

Reality is Pelosi won't allow it. And the Democrats will continue to just accept her not allowing it. She is part of it. As is Hillary Clinton. As was Bill Clinton. Time for people to wake up in this country. The Bushes did not act alone. Neither did the Republicans. Off the table because it is off the table. The American people do not matter. Time for truth and that is the truth. They do not matter to the Democrats or the Republicans.

All that matters to the politicians is what they get out of it themselves. They like oligarchy.

[Dr.Phool]

29. Maybe we should impeach Pelosi and Reid first.

Once the obstructionists are removed, we move on to the rest.

If nothing else, it would be a wake-up call for Pelosi.

[onenote]

45. can't be impeached

Although it has never been tested (nor will it ever be tested) the weight of authority is that members of the House and Senate cannot be impeached. Nor is there any need for impeachment. The House and Senate have the authority to expel members. But its more likely that you will wake up tomorrow as king of the world than that the House and Senate will expel Reid and Pelosi or even make an effort to do so.

[CK_John]

25. I don't thing we have the votes in the House. I don't think you understand the politics of the House

[Senator]

36. The "politics of the House"...

...change quite dramatically when Members must either defend or reject torture. On the record.

That's not so hard to understand.

===

[sce56]

26. I feel once the hearings begin the resultant evidence will shine out those votes!

[Seabiscuit]

46. Wow! I just realized Adolph's features are so much easier on the eyes!

[Richard D]

103. Scary . . .

. . . how * looks so much more evil.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. It Would Be Nothing More Than A Dog And Pony Show That Would Put 08 At Huge Risk.

That very well could end up with our losing all of what we seek. Instead, we need to do everything in our power to end the reign of republican rule and grow our majorities in both houses, and win the presidency. I refuse to throw all of that away for some narrow minded idealistic dog and pony show that will accomplish absolutely nothing. You really think it will keep them too busy? Got a bridge to sell ya pal.

Failed from the get go impeachment proceedings will do nothing more than unite the republicans, split the Democrats, and give the media all the fodder they ever needed to sway public opinion against us even further. There is NOTHING to be gained from it. NOTHING. All risk, no reward. If they are intent on attacking Iran, it will happen whether you have house proceedings or not. We can only hope that our reps will not allow such an act to occur, but it is them that will stop it, not a failed from the start ain't gonna accomplish a thing impeachment process.

Some people need to come to terms with reality already. Impeachment is a dead end that only increases the risk that we lose in 08 and enable the republicans further. It is a self destructive and counter productive ideal that makes no sense whatsoever. If the Dems ever gave in to the fringe left and began such a process (which they won't, thankfully), I can all but guarantee that it would go down in history as one of the biggest political blunders of all time. Fuck that. I'll be damned if I support that.

[philosophie_en_rose]

28. Quit talking sense.

It scares people. :)

[kenfrequed]

102. It is not sense.

It is not even close to sense.

The fact of the matter is the democratic majority is precarious but it is for the opposite reasons stated.

Currently the public has the perception that the Democrats have done nothing to end the War or reverse the direction of this nation. Clearly doing nothing isn't working.

People have been citing penny-sucking political reasoning against impeachment.

I will tell you that minus a large public dsiplay of congress standing up to the president and his crimes their position will be weakened as activists and hard core voters stay home and throw their arms in the air. People are frustrated with congress and no amount of congressional sleepovers will capture the public in an appropriate manner.

I think the Democrats are hoping to get help from moderate republicans that are holding out. The moderate republicans know that if they give the cooperation on some legislation or on taking us out of Iraq then the Dems have no reason to withold impeachment and/or the legislative move against bush will give the Dem's steam and usher the entire collapse of the conservative movement.

Of course if they can stall it out and keep the Dem's meek and divided then they can convert it to a pox on all houses and maintain the status quo. At least until massive ecological disaster.

[Chipster]

34. Dog & Pony Show?

Sorry you think that upholding the Constitution is a "self-destructive and counter productive ideal that makes no sense whatsoever." We're trying to preserve the Republic, and you're playing partisan politics, calculating that it's better not to try than to fail. Upholding the Constitution isn't a political blunder or a partisan issue; it's the bedrock of our Republic.

[skepticscott]

41. Agreed

The OP talks about distracting the Republicans, but what about the distraction for the Democrats? Bush and Cheney certainly deserve to be impeached and it's galling as hell to let them seem to slide on so many serious crimes, but the 2008 elections have to be the Democrat's top priority right now. The Republicans know how much shit is going to hit the fan if they lose control of the White House and the executive branch departments, and they will be desperate and willing to do anything to steal the election next year. Voter supression, rigged voting machines and every other dirty trick they can think of. ALL of the Democrat's efforts for the next year need to go into taking back the presidency and, if possible, increasing their majorities in the Senate and House. Even if Bush and Cheney could be convicted and removed from office (a virtual impossibility), in the greater scheme of things it would be an empty and useless victory if another Republican takes over the White House a few months later. Only with a Democrat in the White House can we clean out the cesspool of corporate whores and neocon sycophants in the executive branch and finally rip the lid off of the Bush administration's cauldron of secrets. There will be plenty of time for criminal proceedings when the White House can no longer stonewall Congress and the justice system at every turn.

[Seabiscuit]

47. Impeachment is not a partisan issue. It's a Constitutional issue.

It's not about a political horse race. Your excuse is even lamer than saying "we don't have the votes".

The Constitution talks about how Congress "shall" impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. That means "must". It's the Constitutional obligation of Congress to do so wherever there's such clear perversion and abuse of executive power. It doesn't say it "may" impeach only if it appears politically expedient to the party out of power. It imposes an obligation on Congressmen as part of their oath of office.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. "That means "must"."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh I LOVE that gross misreading of the constitution! LOL Oh, oh, how truly funny!

I don't believe that some here actually think that's true! :rofl: :rofl:

How absolutely silly. :crazy:

[Seabiscuit]

52. Save your mockery for the next time you look in the mirror.

I know more about the Constitution than you ever will.

I'm a lawyer.

The word "shall" always means "must" in every legal document including the U.S. Constitution.

Putting your ignorance of the law on display like that must be very humiliating.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. ROFLMAO!!!!

" I know more about the Constitution than you ever will."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh really huh?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry pal, but it ain't the definition of the word that's your problem. It's the absolute ignorant and quite simply wrong interpretation of the context.

Thanks for the laugh though, oh lawyerly one! :rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

62. If that's the best you can do,

(post little smilies) that's pretty pathetic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. It's All That Was Necessary To Respond To The Hilarious Post!

I'm not sure the interpretation you put forth along with the falsely confident declarations of being a lawyer and constitutional expert required any additional response other than raw laughter. In fact, it was as genuine a reply as I could've given online, since if were face to face and I heard such statements directly, my direct response back would've been sheer laughter at the hilariousness. Sometimes, that's all that's necessary.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. You're a lawyer?

And you can't look up the simple wording of the constitution regarding impeachment?

It does NOT say congress shall impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Seabiscuit]

76. I never said it did. I said it "talks about how". See my post #73.

Get off your high horse and quit insulting me.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. Your quote:

"The Constitution talks about how Congress "shall" impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. That means "must". It's the Constitutional obligation of Congress to do so wherever there's such clear perversion and abuse of executive power. It doesn't say it "may" impeach only if it appears politically expedient to the party out of power. It imposes an obligation on Congressmen as part of their oath of office."



The constitution doesn't say anything of the sort. You're just wrong.

[Shoedogg]

55. Main Entry: shall

Function: verb

Etymology: Middle English shal (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from Old English sceal; akin to Old High German scal (1st & 3d singular present indicative) ought to, must, Lithuanian skola debt
verbal auxiliary

1 archaic a : will have to : MUST b : will be able to : CAN

2 a -- used to express a command or exhortation <you shall go> b -- used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>


Yeah, I think 'shall' means 'must'.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shall

[Seabiscuit]

56. Good for you. You got it right. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Ain't The Definition Of The Word That's The Problem. It's The Ignorant Interpretation Of The Context

that is.

A grade schooler would even be able to recognize that the interpretation is quite simply dead wrong. This is too funny! :rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

64. Laughin' your way to the looney bin?

Try thinking with your brain instead of with your funny bone. One could break a rib with all that inane laughter.

[MonkeyFunk]

69. But the constitution doesn't

say "congress shall impeach...." so the whole argument is stupid.

[Seabiscuit]

74. I never said it did. I said it "talks about how". See my post #73.

[MonkeyFunk]

81. Your quote

"The Constitution talks about how Congress "shall" impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. That means "must". "

Except you're 100% wrong. The Constitution does not say any such thing. You can look it up - you must have an old unused law book laying around somewhere.

[Seabiscuit]

96. Are you reading comprehension challenged???

You can't see the difference between someone saying X "says" Y and X "talks about how" Y exists?

[MonkeyFunk]

120. Under normal circumstances

but you directly and deliberately misquoted it.

The constitution does not say congress SHALL do anything regarding impeachment. It says merely officers shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction. YOU deliberately tried to confuse and obfuscate by saying it the way you did.

"The Constitution talks about how Congress "shall" impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. That means "must". It's the Constitutional obligation of Congress to do so wherever there's such clear perversion and abuse of executive power. It doesn't say it "may" impeach only if it appears politically expedient to the party out of power. It imposes an obligation on Congressmen as part of their oath of office."



You contrast the "congress shall impeach" to "congress may impeach" as if the constitution says either thing - it does not.

[omega minimo]

126. So aside from semantic arguments, where does accountability come into play?

:popcorn:

[MonkeyFunk]

130. Dunno

Not sure we CAN enforce "accountability". But a failed impeachment won't do anything to enforce accountability.

What I had to say in this thread was that the constitution does NOT say "Congress shall impeach" as implied by the "lawyer".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. Indeed.

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

66. No

the constitution does NOT say "shall impeach for high crimes and misdemenaors". Perhaps you should read it.

[Seabiscuit]

75. I never said it did. I said it "talks about how". See my post #73.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. No

you were just plain wrong.

You said how the constitution talks about how congress shall impeach - nowhere does the constitution say congress shall impeach. Nowhere.

You made it up, and it's laughable that you can't just say "whoops, i goofed". Maybe you are a lawyer after all.

[kenfrequed]

98. Wow

So a person with Hillary on her profile and someone who ahs a picture of nader saying "%$#& Nader" are ripping on the language of someone who is pro impeachment while ducking the real issue of the crimes of this administration.

Why am I slightly less than surprised.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. Now There's A Skewed And Narrow Minded Argument For Ya.

We're accurately setting straight the absurd and patently false claim that the constitution has somewhere within it a mandate that impeachment MUST take place. We are in the right on that and it is perfectly appropriate for us to dispute that absurd claim. I fail to see what saying "Fuck Nader" (which is also perfectly appropriate) has to do with calling out a ridiculous interpretation of our constitution. In fact, all you did was offer a really weak and easily dismissed ad hominem attack that carried with it no value.

Can you do better than that? Do you agree with the other poster that the constitution carries within it that mandate for impeachment? If you don't, then your response above was nothing short of silly since you'd be acknowledging we were right. But if you do agree, then I'd just LOVE to see you break down just WHERE in the constitution it says this and show logical step by step how you arrive at this glaringly false conclusion.

Ready, set, go! :hi:

[kenfrequed]

104. The original argument you posed

That it was a dog and poney show is deeply flawed.

Ethically
Constitutionally
and even politically.

The question you just posed is flawed and backwards. The question isn't 'Must we' but rather 'should we.' Do you really believe that this administration has NOT committed impeachable offences as defined by the constitution? High Crimes and Misdemeanors? Yes or no?

Spying on the American people. Lying to the American people, congress, and the world? The quiet suspension of Habeus Corpus? Torture in contradiction to the Geneva convention? War Profiteering and corruption that makes Teapot Dome (even in inflation adjusted dollars) look like a teapot?

So ethically and constitutionally do you see failing to impeach being the right move? If you think that these crimes merit an impeachment investigation than I cannot see how you can argue against it.

If I cannot appeal to your sense of reason, ethics, or duty, then what of politics? Do you really think doing nothing in the face of Bush and failing to stop him at every possible turn will actually benefit the fragile democratic majority in congress? Have the moderate republicans (and Liberman) thanked us for not going after Bush? How do you think this will sell with the voters? Don't you think that maybe going after them might actually help party unity during primary season? Don't you think that the 60 % agaisnt the war and who hate Bush wouldn't feel a little better about Democrats if we actually held his feet to the fire?

Are we playing to an audience of spinmeisters, pundits, and commentators that few Americans (even voting Americans) listen to any longer?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. It Would Be A Dog And Pony Show. And My Intitial Post Outlines Exactly Why.

Impeachment proceedings will accomplish nothing. They will not unite democrats. They would unite the fringe left. But far more would be turned off by such a dog and pony show that out of the gates was already known to have the ability to accomplish absolutely nothing. Failing to impeach is not something of our doing. Failing to impeach is of the reality that there are almost NO republicans willing to side with what is ethical. I'm not going to retype everything again. Read my initial post for the quite factual reasons why a dog and pony impeachment would be a huge blunder.

[kenfrequed]

114. Right....

And clearly you didn't read my post.

I don't know who these people are you are expecting to suddenly decide they like Bush. Has it occurred to you even remotely that the reason the Clinton Impeachment failed was BECAUSE of his approval ratings AND how absolutely absurd the charges were that were pressed against him?

Look at Bush's approval ratings. Look at the polling on Iraq. Do you honestly believe the public will be inspired by the Democrats NOT taking a principled stand at this point? Are you saying that over 60% of the American people are all a part of the 'fringe left'? I mean you are making REPUBLICAN arguments here on a democrat board.

You honestly make no reasonable or intelligent argument as to why this is a bad idea politically. None. You merely say that it will be and that is that. Will the majority of the population of America that is against Bush's war in Iraq suddenly, and for no reason just say "oh my gods they are going after the guy that lied is into a war I oppose now, how could they do that?"

[kenfrequed]

115. And

I would further state that I find it irony to the nth degree that someone who uses a picture that says "!#@$ Nader" and does not support his arguments chooses to lecture me on the nature of logical fallacies.

[skepticscott]

117. Unfortunately, it's too late for the Democrats to take a principled stand

The time to do that would have been last January, the minute they took control of the House and had (probably) a majority to vote for impeachment. Now that they've sat around timidly for 8 months, that opportunity is lost forever.

If you're Nancy Pelosi, how do you answer this?:

"Madame Speaker, if these charges are serious enough to justify impeaching the president of the United States, how do you explain the fact that you've waited 8 months to begin impeachment proceedings, given that all of the acts charged occurred long before this year? If impeachment is in the best interests of the country, and not just to make the president and his party look bad, why weren't impeachment proceedings started last January?"

[kenfrequed]

119. The other 'I' word

Investigations. As in hearings.

You start talking about investigations and talking up what is being talked about. Hold hearings get the ball rolling.

[skepticscott]

128. That's how you'd answer if you were the Speaker?

if that's the best you can do, then you should understand my point. And whatever you propose to start with, the embarassing question of why it didn't start in January still remains.

[onenote]

127. there was no majority for impeachment last january

Virtually none of the Democrats elected last November (including both re-elected incumbents and "freshmen") ran campaigns that made an issue of impeachment or even discussed it. And virtually any Democratic candidate that did talk about it lost (although they probably would've lost whether or not they talked about it). The idea that there was any sort of mandate for impeachment based on the election results last November is pure fantasy. Indeed, both Pelosi AND Howard Dean had taken impeachment "off the table" before the November election and any attempt to move directly to that issue in January would've been an absolute disaster.

[skepticscott]

129. You may very well be right

But the fact remains that starting impeachment proceedings now would inevitably draw the difficult-to-answer question of why, if this is so important and so serious, the Democrats didn't have the stones for it in January, but they do now. The Dems had their chance to be tough 8 months ago (or even before that, as you point out) and they blew it. Now all it will look like is a partisan fishing expedition. But you can bet if the situation had been reversed, the Republican leadership in the House would have twisted the necessary arms to get a majority vote right from the start.

[kenfrequed]

133. Because

It is never too late to take a principled stand and do the right thing.

If I had to even I could write a speech that expresses percisely that idea.

Using your logic there is never a time one could do anything since you could have already done so several months ago. Because you failed to do it then you cannot do so now?

On the surface you have an argument, but ultimately it makes no sense.

[skepticscott]

136. You still haven't answered the questions

"Madame Speaker, if these charges are serious enough to justify impeaching the president of the United States, how do you explain the fact that you've waited 8 months to begin impeachment proceedings, given that all of the acts charged occurred long before this year? If impeachment is in the best interests of the country, and not just to make the president and his party look bad, why weren't impeachment proceedings started last January?"

If you can't answer those questions, how in the world can you argue that the Democrats can either look principled or gain politically in starting impeachment proceedings now?

Here's your chance...help Nancy Pelosi out and write a speech in answer to the above.


And no, that is not what my logic says. I said explicitly that there WAS a time when the Democrats could have done something with regard to impeachment-back on January 3rd when they convened the current Congress with a Democratic majority in the House. Before that, they could not have begun impeachment proceedings since they had been in the minority since 1994. Having lost that chance, they can no longer argue that they're acting on principle, since nothing has changed with regard to that principle since January. Sorry if you can't grasp that, but it's the truth.

[kenfrequed]

142. No

I am sorry but again you are in the wrong in suggesting there is only a narrow window with which this can be done. Your argument requires people to believe that the Democratic party is a monolith and that all minds are of one mind on this.

There are so many ways to say that your position has evolved, that the administration has failed to acknowledge the will of the American people, that the crimes have become so blatant it is impossible to ignore, that upon reflection and a desire to avoid the most divisive possible action in government I have decided that I must favor impeachment proceedings.

That the criminality has now exceeded the petty banal realm of partisan rancor and spin that we havecome to expect of this administration. That as a congressperson you had hoped that the last elections would serve to notice that the American people themselves had taken note of the criminal acts of the president and acted accordingly and that maybe you had hoped that the president would come to his senses with his behavoir and investigate these inconsistancies.

That pursuing the AG we have learned the depth to which this administration would go to cover and conceal the crime of voter fraud.

There is no "window"

[kenfrequed]

134. The time it is too late

Is when Bush is out of office and has gotten away with it. Or perhaps after elections have been suspended after another crisis.

[MonkeyFunk]

101. No

the real issue is whether the constitution says "congress shall impeach". It does not.

[Seabiscuit]

106. That's not the issue at all.

No one ever alleged that "the constitution *says* 'congress shall impeach'".

Persistence in such strawmen arguments is shameful, morally reprehensible and intellectually bankrupt.

[MonkeyFunk]

121. You wrote:

"The Constitution talks about how Congress "shall" impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. That means "must". It's the Constitutional obligation of Congress to do so wherever there's such clear perversion and abuse of executive power. It doesn't say it "may" impeach only if it appears politically expedient to the party out of power. It imposes an obligation on Congressmen as part of their oath of office."



How can you now say you didn't ever mean to imply that it says Congress shall impeach? You contrasted "Congress shall impeach" with "Congress may impeach", even though the constitution says neither thing.

You were wrong. You were mistaken. You THOUGHT the constitution said something it didn't, and it's laughable that you keep trying to defend it.

[kenfrequed]

107. Actually you are a bit off

The original argument was one in favor of impeachment. The line you followed was a sub argument about whether congress is mandated to follow through with such an investigation. And that line only existed because someone suggested that Impeachment proceedings against this administration would be a 'Dog and pony show'

Of course with the degree of criminality of this administration it is easy to get confused. Still I wish you would not latch onto an argument on the posters use (or misuse as the case may be) of language. I would prefer to see you possibly weigh in on whether or not impeachment is a good idea and why or why not.

I understand how a nice smooth status quo sort of thing helps the 'eventuality strategy' that your candidate of choice is employing but really a matter of this gravity deserves a bit more time and courage.

[MonkeyFunk]

132. I'm not off

either the constitution says "Congress shall impeach..." or it does not.

It does not.

[kenfrequed]

135. Wow

And you didn't read a single word of my post did you.

I mean it is as though you just posted a title line saying "am not" or "are too" in hopes that it would be enough. You did not follow the preceding thread and you did not actually read my post.

I would have to just ask you whether or not Bush ought to be impeached. I won't qualify that you simplify to a 'yes' or 'no' since in life there are no questions that are that simple, but the question does require an answer I should think.

[MonkeyFunk]

139. The only point I've made in this whole silly subthread

is whether or not the constitution says what somebody claimed it does. I'm not interested in arguing any other points. Perhaps you meant to pick a fight with somebod else?

[kenfrequed]

141. You know

If I were in favor of impeachment but had an argument with some silly misreading of the constitution then I would probably have said so by now.

[MonkeyFunk]

143. Thanks for sharing what you'd do.

[kenfrequed]

144. No problem

Clearly you and your candidate have a vested interest in the subject of impeachment not being brought up in the lead up to the election.

[MonkeyFunk]

145. Who is my candidate?

I haven't chosen yet - evidently you can save me the time and trouble.

[skepticscott]

70. Stop blowing smoke up our ass

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say "Congress SHALL impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors" It says that the President and Vice president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Either cite for us the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that say Congress SHALL impeach, or admit you lied and go away.

[Seabiscuit]

73. You want a cite?

Article 1, Section 2 <5> states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article II, Section 4 states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Assuming the President has committed an impeachable offense, which I doubt is in question in any DU'ers mind...

(1) where a President has committed an impeachable offense, he "shall" (*must*) be removed from office on Impeachment for and conviction of (such an impeachable offense). That means someone has to remove him from office. It imposes an obligation on whoever has the power to impeach.

(2) Since the House of Representatives has the sole Power of Impeachment, where a President must be removed from office on Impeachment/conviction, the Constitution has placed a duty/obligation solely on Congress to remove a sitting President by Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate (Article I, Section 3<6>). The Senate has the duty to convict where two-thirds vote in favor of conviction.

Therefore Congress shall/must impeach where impeachable offenses have been committed.

When I made that declarative statement earlier I wasn't using some quote from the Constitution (I merely said the Constitution "talks about how"), so you have no business claiming I did, and no business calling me a liar.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. This Is Your Post #73? That's What We Were Supposed To Read?

:rofl:

""The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.""


"Therefore Congress shall/must impeach where impeachable offenses have been committed."

Ummm, sorry there mr constitutional scholar lawyer dude, but that conclusion from that constitutional quote is nothing short of ignorant and flat out wrong. Nowhere does it say congress shall impeach where impeachable offenses have been committed. NOWHERE does it say that. Only if the Senate CONVICTS does that apply. Not the use of the word "AND" in the constitutional quote. And. It's pretty important. See, it's different than the word "OR". Pretty simple reading comprehension really. Like I said: A student in grade school could discern that.

[Seabiscuit]

90. Your failure to grasp rudimentary logic as it applies to a legal document

is only exceeded by your inability to behave in a civil manner on a discussion board.

I've seen bullies on the playground laugh and giggle just like you when they finally get their arses whipped.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. ROFLMAO!!!! Oh How You Just Keep Goin! Keep Holding Onto Your Flawed Logic. Grasp It With All

your might! Don't dare let it go even when presented with rational reasoning and simple elementary fact!

Oh man this is just too funny to me. Rudimentary logic. :rofl:

Ok mr constitutional scholar lawyer dude. You go have fun with your unbelievably wrong interpretation of a quite simple constitutional phrase. Keep shouting it from the rooftops! That's just BOUND to make it come true all of a sudden!

And what I wouldn't give to see you break down that constitutional quote and show us ALL just how exactly it mandates such action. C'mon, I'd love to see it. Show us all, show all of us guilty of rudimentary logic just HOW that phrase supports your conclusion. C'mon, dissect it pal. Let's see mr constitutional scholar lawyer dude in action. I can't wait!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

95. Ignorant hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to arguments based on silly smilies.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. Awww, C'mon Pal. Don't Avoid The Challenge. After All, It's YOUR Argument. Can You Support It?

We're all waiting! C'mon, dissect the constitutional quote, oh constitutionally scholared one, and show us EXACTLY how you break it down to arrive at the conclusion you have. That shouldn't be so hard for you should it? You are just oh so confident in your argument that you can sit here criticizing and attacking people for calling out the obvious, so you should be able to break it down off the top of your head no? Can you do that, or will you just continue to post silly attacks while providing no substance to your position or reasoning? Guess we'll wait and see! :hi:

[Seabiscuit]

105. See my post #73 where my argument is fully supported, wiseguy.

GD has always, unfortunately, been infested with assholes who live just to ridicule anyone they can find to disagree with, and typically do so with the use of mockery, strawman arguments, misrepresentation of another's words and positions, and with absolutely no substance to their accusations and vile personal attacks.

It looks like I stumbled onto a hornet's nest of them in this thread.

Since I'm not getting paid my usual fee to educate, pass or fail the wilfully and obstinately ignorant and the morally, ethically and intellectually bankrupt, this thread has become a complete waste of my time.

So, to all of you that this applies, and you all know who you are: BUH-BYE - PING!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. You Call That Being Fully Supported? ROFLMAO!!! You Supported NOTHING! LOL

In fact, all you did was post a quote from the constitution and then a ridiculous leaped to conclusion of "
Therefore Congress shall/must impeach where impeachable offenses have been committed.".

What I want is for you to actually BREAK IT DOWN. C'mon pal. Break down your wonderful logic and show us exactly how you arrive at such absurdity. Yes, the constitution says what you say it says. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute, is your monumentally flawed and quite simply wrong conclusion that it translates into some sort of mandate to proceed with impeachment. Your words again: "Therefore Congress shall/must impeach where impeachable offenses have been committed.". Oh yeah? Like, rilly? How do you arrive at "Therefore"? WHERE exactly in the constitution does it actually say that Congress MUST impeach? Where pal? Mind pointing it out? Break it down oh constitutionally scholared one. You won't be able to, because it just simply DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE. And to think for a second that your post 73 did ANYTHING to bolster your argument is quite hilarious. So maybe you should try again, this time clarifying a bit further for us non-lawyerly non-constitutionally scholared ones exactly how that quote from the constitution translates into "Therefore Congress shall/must impeach where impeachable offenses have been committed."

I find this entire argument so hilarious. It so blatantly doesn't exist and you're making the entire thing up, yet you're prepared to fight to the grave swearing by it. I mean holy cow!

I love your claim that your post 73 'fully supported' your argument. It's like me saying "Scientists say the sky is blue". "Therefore, the atmosphere is filled with smurfs". :rofl:

Gotta do just a weeeeeee bit better than that to fully support your argument. You haven't even come close to doing so. The funny part is, you couldn't possibly come close to doing so since there is no way to twist the words in the constitution enough to arrive at the conclusion you had.

Read this part very carefully: THERE IS NO MANDATE IN THE CONSTITUTION TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT FOR ANY REASON PERIOD. Did you get that? If not, read it again, more carefully. That statement is as much fact as any fact you will ever come across your entire life. This isn't up for interpretation. This isn't up for opinion. It is hard cold indisputable fact. :hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

83. It's impossible

to have gone to law school and interpret that the way you do.

Nowhere does it put an obligation on the congress to impeach. You were wrong, as shown by the way you presented it in your famed post # 73.

It doesn't say anywhere that congress shall impeach. It only uses "shall" in relation to the punishment of those who have been impeached. IF congress impeaches and convicts, the President SHALL be removed.

That's like saying if the law says "Anyone convicted of murder shall receive no less than 20 years" means that everyone should be charged with murder.

[Seabiscuit]

92. Wrong.

Since you never attended law school you never learned how to properly read and construe legal documents.

The Constitution doesn't only use "shall" in relation to the punishment of those who have been impeached.

That is not what the Constitution says at all.

Go back and read the citations I gave you.

It also says the House of Representatives "shall" have the sole Power to Impeach.

The Constitution is speaking with the force of a mandate to and about the Presidency and the Congress. When it says the President "shall" be impeached for (impeachable offenses) then that is a mandate in the form of a command. Had it said "may", then that would be a discretionary provision which would support your point of view. But it doesn't. And since the word "shall" is a word of mandate, it means *must" in everyday language. It is a requirement which imposes a constitutional obligation on whoever has the power to impeach. And it is the House of Representatives who has that obligation since it has the sole power to impeach.

Your political outlook is apparently interfering with your abililty to read and think.

And quit insulting me personally. It's a violation of DU rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

93. You're just wrong

very wrong indeed.

[philosophie_en_rose]

108. Did you go to law school at Liberty U or Regent's?

I dare you to take your argument to any constitutional law professor. They would laugh at you, too.

Not that it matters, but I did very well in law school. I can't imagine any attorney dismissing the plain language of the constitution in favor of your kind of silliness. As Monkeyfunk and OMC stated, a statute that says that the state has the power to prosecute and that a punishment shall follow a conviction does not mean that anyone is obligated to bring charges.

[Seabiscuit]

109. Did you go to law school at Disneyland? Did the wizard at Fantasyland teach you constitutional law?

What goes around comes around, dude.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. Hmmm. I Was Thinking More Along The Lines Of From A Cracker Jack Box.

[onenote]

138. legal method 101

The Constitution confers on the House the "sole power" to impeach (and the Senate the "sole power" to try impeachments). That grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the House, however, in no way obligates the House to actually impeach anyone and it is extraordinarily poor legal analysis and reasoning to suggest otherwise. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between a grant of authority to act and a mandate to act. Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution declares that the President shall have "the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" but no one would ever suggest that this somehow imposes an obligation on the executive to grant a reprieve or pardon in any particular instance, whether or not "justified" in some sense.

Put another way, the supposed constitutional obligation imposed on the House to impeach is absurd and unenforceable. WOuld you suggest that if the House voted on articles of impeachment that the members who voted against were somehow guilty of a constitutional violation? What if a majority voted against. Would those who supported impeachment be guilty of violating a constitutional duty? It is a nonsensical construction of the plain words of the COnstitution to suggest that it imposes any obligation on the House. What it does it confer authority, which the House can choose to exercise or not exercise as it sees fit.

And yes, I'm a lawyer. One who is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, who has filed briefs in constitutional cases before the Supreme Court, and has been on the winning side in thoses cases.

[skepticscott]

85. Hogwash and you know it

Article 1, Section 2 <5> states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Saying that they have the POWER to impeach means that it is within their constitutional authority. It does NOT mean that they are required to do it. The Constitution gives Congress all sorts of powers but does not always mandate their execution-it leaves it to the discretion of Congress in many cases. Oh, and BTW, in this sentence, the word "shall" does not mean "must" in the sense of "is required or compelled to", so your earlier claim that:

The word "shall" always means "must" in every legal document including the U.S. Constitution.

is also a falsehood.

Article II, Section 4 states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

This is a conditional statement (if you really are a lawyer, I assume you know what that means). It says that IF the House chooses to impeach and IF the Senate votes 2/3 for conviction, THEN the person on trial SHALL be removed from office. It imposes no obligation whatsoever on either body to act in the first place, but only specifies what happens if a certain result is reached.

Please do us a favor and go back to law school before you burden us with more of your blather.

[Seabiscuit]

94. Hogwash right back at ya.

You're just making up your own notions of what the Constitutional language means.

The next time a judge orders that you "shall" enter a drug rehabilitation program, you may feel free to disregard him because you have the discretion, by your way of thinking, to make up your own mind about its meaning.

[MonkeyFunk]

131. Don't be thick

nowhere in the constitution is "shall" used to refer to the congress' obligation to impeach, nor can you demonstrate that it does, either in word or intent.

The word "shall" refers only to the punishment applied upon conviction, not the bringing of charges.

You were just dead wrong in your original assertion - you contrasted "shall impeach" to "may impeach", even though NEITHER phrase is in the constitution. Your pig-headed refusal to simply admit your mistake is funny.

[omega minimo]

125. Speaking Of Dog And Pony Showboating......

"Failed from the get go impeachment proceedings will do nothing more than unite the republicans, split the Democrats, and give the media all the fodder they ever needed to sway public opinion against us even further. There is NOTHING to be gained from it. NOTHING. All risk, no reward."


These are not facts. You have no way of knowing the outcome. It's silly to state it as if is fact. It's not.


"Impeachment is a dead end that only increases the risk that we lose in 08 and enable the republicans further."


Nonsense. NOT impeaching "increases the risk that we lose in 08 and enable the republicans further."


Impeachment is an indictment, an indictment for crimes against this nation. Insisting that people not demand accountability for crimes against the nation is crazy.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Actually

you probably don't even have the votes to impeach in the House.

And a failed impeachment would be awful.

[provis99]

32. Uhh. they wouldn't impeach even if they have the votes

The Democrats have been openly collaborating with the Republicans, giving Bush MORE money than he requests for the war. Even if the Democrats outnumbered the Repukes 2 to 1 in both houses, you wouldn't hear anything on the impeachment front. Impeachment is essentially a defunct and outdated element of the Constitution. What we elect are essentially four-year dictatorial terms for our presidents.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

33. VOTE ON IT TO PUT THE FASCISTS AND FELLOW-TRAVELERS ON RECORD

LET THE CONFRONTATION BEGIN.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

35. i find it sweet

i find it sweet how you turn to your quisling congress and hope they do something...

obviously some people here are very daft or don't care plowing water.

[LeftCoast]

37. Impeachment without a conviction = EXONERATION

I do not want Bush exonerated. I want him to do time.

[Seabiscuit]

48. Wrong.

"Exoneration" is a criminal law term. You have a false analogy to a criminal proceeding in your head. Impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a Constitutional one. And conviction merely means removal from office, not "doing time".

Whether or not a President is impeached and convicted, if he has violated any criminal statute while in office, he may still be prosecuted after he leaves office, and imprisoned upon conviction in a criminal trial.

[John Kerry VonErich]

51. Your right, and the LeftCoast is almost right

LeftCoast is right about "exoneration". I believe, IMHO, he used it as if they don't get the 2/3 majority, it equals to exoneration.

[Seabiscuit]

60. "Exonoration" as used in the 20th century is indeed a criminal law term:

"Exonorate" means "exculpate" (Black's law dictionary)

"Exonoration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonerate

The word is misapplied if used in an Impeachment context.

[John Kerry VonErich]

61. Ok, you are right

Maybe he was trying to get a different phrase for it and it was the first to come to mind.

[Seabiscuit]

65. I agree - we all do that sometimes.

[John Kerry VonErich]

67. Totally understandable

I did get what LeftCoast was trying to say, just worded wrong.

[omega minimo]

123. Bullshit. Instead of pushing your bumpersticker, why not do some reading on afterdowningstreet.org

Elizabeth De La Vega, Bruce Fein, etc..........................

[Enrique]

39. another bad reason for impeaching Bush

to keep him busy.

[lligrd]

40. Impeach, Just Do It nt

[Norrin Radd]

42. k+r

[onenote]

43. I wish we did, but we really don't have the votes in the House

Maybe if the process reached a certain point, we might. But the way the process works, the first step is for the House to vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry. And there are more than enough blue dogs and Democratic members from swing states who are not interested in supporting that resolution unless it has bi-partisan support, which it clearly wouldn't get at this point. Its just the reality of the situation. These members aren't going to support a purely partisan resolution knowing that it will be pointed out ad nauseum that both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes started with at least some bi-partisan support for the vote authorizing the Judiciary Committee's inquiry. (The vote in the Nixon case was overrwhelmingly bi-partisan (410-4), and even the Clinton impeachment inquiry resolution garnered 31 Democrats in support).

So, the impeachment process is not a viable strategy for getting the evidence about the administration's misdeeds out in front of the public. However, outside of the impeachment process various House committees have jurisdiction to conduct investigatory and oversight hearings and they should be doing so more aggressively than currently is the case, imo.

[lame54]

44. this should be the theme song for the dems

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fCutvXccFlA

[John Kerry VonErich]

50. It seems you forgot that the reason to impeach is to convict.

House is like a grand jury, impeachment equal to a grand jury voting to indict the presdent, and the senate is the jury for the trial. There are some people who cannot wait to get rid of Bush and if there is no conviction, they won't be happy about it and it looks like it becomes a waste.

[napi21]

53. I don't think the Dems have the votes to pass a bill of impeachment.

I also believe if it were tried and it failed, it would only embolden Shrub to be WORSE if that's possible! There quite a few Dems wh just wouldn't vote for it. I don't like it either, but you HAVE to face reality. Kicinich tried. He introduced the bill. How many signators does he have right now? If the votes were really there, we could push for the floor vote, but they're simply not there!!!

[bigtree]

54. I don't think that will 'work' either

if all Congress brings to the process are charges generated by Democrats alone without the benefit of some outside prosecution.

In fact, I believe Bush would likely escalate his militarism to detract from the proceedings.

[spanone]

59. Bill Clinton was not 'convicted' IMPEACH NOW

[John Kerry VonErich]

63. What happened after the Clinton?

Republicans were voted out of office and thinned out their majority.

[spanone]

86. because it was about sex, not about invading and occupying a nation on false pretenses

[kenfrequed]

110. Oh gods

No No No No.

Think about this for a moment. Ultimately when you peeled back the Clinton impeachment it was about perjury about sex.

When we peel back this Bushes crimes what will we find underneath it? Lies, Politicizing justice, Voter Fraud, crimes agaisnt the constitution, lies, war profiteering, lies.

I mean seriously it would be such a amateur mistake to assume all impeachments are equivalent in their effect on the legislature. As I have said before, if you cannot be ethical or constitutional with regard to Bush's crimes against this nation then there are plenty of political arguments that can be levied in favor of impeachment.

There is no way the public is going to blame a congress they elected to take over and oppose Bush and end the war for doing what they were put there for. On the other hand if Congress is ineffectual and weak in the face of bush people will give up on the process and stay home.

[John Kerry VonErich]

118. The reason is I believe it is just too close to elections to ever have impeachment.

Impeachment is quite a lengthy process. Goin through sub committees and committees, then debate on wheather to vote to debate, vote to debate, debate, vote to end debate, and then the impeachment vote. By the time the impeachment vote hits, it'll be too close to the general elections by then. That and the fact there are no 2/3 votes to convict, it's just not worth it.

[rodeodance]

71. we talk to ourselves all the time-the choir----need to constantly keep the phones

ringing in Pelosi--and Reeds office.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. A friggin men

I have been shouting this for months now.

[treestar]

87. True, and then the Senate may have to convict

If the evidence is out there, by that time, absolute party loyalty may not look good for the repuke Senators.

[MonkeyFunk]

88. bush is already

at extremely low levels and there's an election next year, and there's still no sizable movement away from him among republican senators.

They can't even overrid a veto - you think they'll vote to convict and remove him?

[Desertrose]

89. After EVERYTHING this "resident" has done,the crime is NOT to impeach.

(Typo- actually meant to say "president")

How can the Dems NOT seriously be considering impeachment is beyond me. Sure as hell doesn't say anything too good about them. If this is all just a bunch of games ("don't have the votes, blah blah blah) then why do we even bother with elections? Why don't we just hand over our money right to the corps & DoD for more weapons and give 'em all a nice thank you & pat on the back.

Seems to me the ONLY one who is speaking out in any way about ALL of this bullshit is KUcinich. The rest of the dem candidates sure as hell don't want too much to change. At least DK knows we need some big changes in the country.

DR

[govegan]

100. Impeach or leave it.

That ridiculous bumper sticker slogan was often invoked by the neo-fascist right during the sixties and early seventies: "America Love It or Leave It" and other similar variations.

Seriously. Consider the constitution. Then impeach them, or leave office, or leave the country, or at least leave your fat ass.

Oh.

And don't forget to vote for Kucinich and contribute to his campaign on your way out.

[trashcanistanista]

116. I couldn't have said it any more eloquently!

K&R :kick:

[omega minimo]

124. Impeachment is an indictment, followed by hearings and presentation of well-documented evidence

and additional investigations if necessary. Who knows what MORE will slither out after the rock is turned over?



The "WeDontHaveTheVotes" apologists are in denial and are on the wrong side of history. Maybe they don't want to know the truth or do the right thing. It's easier to play counting games and not bother actually thinking through the implications of inaction.

Their denial and laziness is creating a darker future for all of us.

:evilfrown:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. It's an argument worth considering, but I think better one year of Bush than four of Giuliani

I agree that initiating impeachment procedings would keep Bush busy, reducing - but by no means eliminating - the chance of him declaring war on Iran.

Unfortunately, such an obvious time-wasting tactic would, I think, rebound heavily on the Democrats in 2008, giving us four more years of someone who can't be trusted not to push the button.

It's also worth considering that while impeachment procedings might make it impractical for Bush top run a war successfully, he is not, I think, the kind of man who would be prevented from starting a war by that fact.