Why Impeachment is ultimately doomed:

[SidneyCarton]

Two words:

John Roberts

Yes, the House can and should Impeach the President. However once Impeachment moves to the Senate, (Where it is unlikely to make much headway anyway) the presiding official in the trial of the President is the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts. We all know Mr. Roberts right? Corporate lawyer for major transnational corporations, one of the members of the Bush legal team in Florida in 2000? How likely is it that this guy will screw over his boss who managed to place him at the head of the Judiciary branch for as long as he wants to be there?

The House can impeach, but lets not kid ourselves, there's no way this could ever get any further with the current crook at the head of SCOTUS.

[JDPriestly]

1. So, under your logic, that Rehnquist was the Chief Justice during

Clinton's presidency should have meant that Clinton would be impeached. John Roberts could make decisions that would defeat a conviction. Fact is, impeachment in and of itself even without a conviction would be fine. The important thing is to get the facts on the table and bring the attention of the American people to those facts. That's what is important.

[SidneyCarton]

5. No,

Rehnquist had no chance of convicting Clinton because the charges against him were bull, and there were more than enough Senators who knew it and were unwilling to convict him over an act that many of the male members of that august body were likely guilty of themselves. (consider the fact that this event caused the downfall of both Gingrich and Livingston in the House)

While Roberts could act in the interests of the Law and the Constitution, his track record suggests otherwise.

[Orrex]

2. One would hope that he'd have the integrity to recuse himself

Hah! That's a funny one! "Integrity!" "Recuse himself!" I'm fucking hysterical!



Sadly, your observation is tragically correct, but that doesn't excuse Dems for their near-absolute abandoning of their duty.

[librechik]

3. For the last time, we don't care if it's doomed to failure. We only want the hearings!

Let the chips fall where they may--and the world observe our devotion to the rule of law, even without hope of justice.

It's the right thing to do. Period.

[SidneyCarton]

7. Understood and agreed.

I was merely noting the ultimate obstacle to Impeachment, I want hearings too.

[librechik]

11. yeah, we all know the CW on that--and it really doesn't matter

it's just there to intimidate us and keep us from getting it done. They also say there's not enough time, hoping nobody knows that impeachment proceedings could go on even after BushCo leaves office.

All part of the "Lie Down and Behave like Good Little Sheep" propaganda we are showered with daily.

[wryter2000]

13. I want hearings, too

I want multiple hearings going at the same time in the House and the Senate. Impeachment isn't the most efficient way of doing that. In fact, limiting hearings to impeachment hearings eliminates the Senate until the House has acted.

[SidneyCarton]

15. Is that true?

I seem to remember hearing something like that on Thom or Randi, when they were talking to their brain trust of legal scholars. If so, then perhaps this is as good as it gets. Nevertheless, Impeachment might be cathartic, a form of national exorcism.

[wryter2000]

18. If we put all our eggs in the impeachment basket

I imagine you could have impeachment hearings and other hearings at the same time. But, impeachment doesn't get to the Senate until after Bush/Cheney are impeached in the House.

People talk about impeachment hearings with Nixon, but if I recall correctly (and I watch most of the hearings), none of the hearings were about impeachment, per se. They were about the Watergate break-in. Toward the end, articles of impeachment were drawn up, but Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

[librechik]

23. on another platform, we try to get the bastard indicted for murder

You are right, impeachment isn't nearly enough--but backing away from it because it isn't effective doesn't make sense to me--the whole Congressional process is trainted and ineffective right now on every level becasue there is a huge stinking mess in the middle of the country that everyone is ignoring. We have to start somewhere...

[aquart]

19. Yes.

I am in complete agreement on this.

[Dogtown]

4. A valid point

Still, I think the people are demanding action. They know treason has been committed, and they want a reckoning.

It would behoove the sitting body to bring impeachment and let it play out; if the scotus scoundrels compound their crimes, at least our folks made the attempt to right it.

If each and every one of these criminals, top to bottom, is not brought to trial then the American public is right to lose hope because the coup could not be broken.

Like Sulla, who did not profit from his rebellion but was not punished either; it opens the door for the next ambitious Caesar.

[SidneyCarton]

8. True, and in many ways Caesar was far worse than Sulla,

As the republic was restored after Sulla, but dead after Caesar.

[tuggle]

6. Can we at least have indictments? PULLLEASE!!!!?

[SidneyCarton]

9. Ask Nancy, I'm unfortunately not the Speaker of the House.

That said, were I the Speaker, I would have begun them months ago.

[wryter2000]

10. I don't know if Roberts could affect the outcome

It wouldn't matter, anyway. We'd never get 16 Republicans to vote to convict.

[SidneyCarton]

12. Sad but true,

I just could not believe there would be a fair trial with him presiding.

[hlthe2b]

22. He can't

He's the stooge at the front of the room that officiates for the proceedings... period

[Dogtown]

14. A valid point, but

The people know that treason has been committed. They require a reckoning.

The legislative branches should begin impeachment. If the SCOTUS scoundrels compound their crimes, the people will know it wasn't their representatives that failed them, but an activist appointee.

Forced into the light, perhaps even these scofflaws will do their jobs. I have no faith in that, but I want the failure to be theirs', not our Congress's.

Like Sulla, who received no reward for his rebellion but was not punished either, the door has been left open for the next ambitious Caesar to steal our government with out fear.

[lame54]

16. FUCK ALL OF THAT - IMPEACH...

Let's put away the goddamn crystal balls and IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKERS
let it end how it ends but, in the meantime, let's do something
let's cut through the executive privilege and make it all public

[onenote]

17. You obviously don't know the role played by CJ in an impeachment hearing

It is much different than the role played by a judge in a regular trial. Any and every ruling that the CJ makes can be immediately challenged and overturned by a simple majority vote of the Senate. So if there are 67 votes out there to convict -- and you are dreaming if you think that there are -- getting 51 to overturn any ruling by the CJ would be a snap.

But you're right that impeachment is ultimately doomed: take a look at the vote in the House on the FISA bill and tell me how you get a majority of the House to support impeachment.

[VP505]

20. Yesterday while listening to Senate Floor

debate Senator Hatch was heaping praise on Bu$h as if he were God almighty and the best person that ever lived. Including just about every talking point the Reich has used to justify every stupid thing or disaster Bu$h was brought about the last 7.5 years. He even threw in the old they only criticize because they "Hate Bu$h" meme for good measure. It really struck me that no matter the nature of, or how many dirty deeds a House impeachment would uncover, no matter how compelling or deserving the evidence would be, some Reptilian Senators would absolutely refuse to acknowledge them and do the right thing by convicting him. That's a sad reality!

[hlthe2b]

21. Presiding officer... Has no power to influence outcome

Civics lesson time, by friend....