Why do people believe "impeachment" = "investigation?"

[jpgray]

I get the people who argue that impeachment may receive more coverage and therefore provide more evidence of the crimes of this administration to the people who need to see it--the public at large. What I don't understand is the group that seems to argue impeachment is necessary to -investigate-.

Based on what I know of Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre and all the hard work of taking Nixon down was done before any impeachment hearings took place, via the Watergate Committee. After the SCOTUS forced him to turn over the tape contents it was all over but the gnashing of teeth and jowl-shaking, no? And that was three days or somesuch before the initial articles of impeachment were even voted on. Can you guess what GOP solidarity was like at that point? Impeachment was destined for final success, and Nixon knew it. Many in his administration had quit or been fired, or had been indicted, convicted, or offered a plea of "guilty." All of this stemmed from regular ol' Congressional (and some of it police) investigation, not impeachment.

Further, there are no special powers to an impeachment hearing. None that I can find after many searches, and reading the operant parts of the Constitution. The only advantage is press coverage, but if we can't get the press to report fairly on the current -obvious- malfeasance and investigation thereof, why do DUers expect impeachment, initiated without any of the groundwork the Nixon impeachment had, will automatically be the silver bullet?

What we need in my opinion is a full-bore party commitment to our already extant investigations. And we need to make those investigations a major story, to the point where the embarrassing ass-covering is actually -seen- as embarrassing ass-covering by the public. It is my belief current investigations -will- uncover such things that will lead to a successful impeachment (with FISA, how can they fail to?). We need that showdown in SCOTUS over executive privilege and we need it soon, now, yesterday.

Something like 85% of American tvs were tuned to the Senate hearings that preceded impeachment. The networks switched off covering days, from May 17 to August 7. Can you imagine the effect of that much readily available airtime to show the public what an administration is up to? Can you compare current coverage of our congressional investigations with that? Any ideas to keep the party united in opposition and to make the media -cover- what opposition we do put up?

[Toots]

1. Since Nixon was never impeached your example doesn't really work

When Clinton was Impeached there was investigative hearings in the House and then after the articles were voted on all the evidence was laid out in detail before the Senate and the US Public. It so happened in Clinton's instance they really did not have much to go on and the Senate failed to accept the Impeachment. It was during this trial at the Senate that all the evidence came forth. I certainly would love to see all the evidence come forth on this Bush* Administyration and then have the Republican Senators try and justify why they are not Impeachable offenses. It would capture the public's attention even more than OJ IMO.

[jpgray]

2. He would have been. Clinton's impeachment was preceded by 6-7 -years- of investigation

Why do people think impeachment initiates investigation?