What does the Kucinich Amendment mean?

[kentuck]

I'll admit I did not watch C-SPAN yesterday but from what I have read on the subject, there seems to a lot of false optimism. He will present facts that everybody already knows. Most of America knows that Bush lied. They know that we tortured prisoners. They know we were spied upon. They know we were lied into the Iraq war. They know this Administration continues to lie. Very little new information will come forward from this "hearing", in my opinion.

In the final analysis, I do not see a vote for impeachment, no matter what facts are presented. It's an exercise to make sme folks feel better but I doubt that anything useful will come from it? I hope an pray I am wrong. If there is anyone in our history that needed impeached, it is the present occupant of the White House.

[AndyA]

1. I think once the facts become part of the "official" record, they will have more impact.

How the M$M chooses to cover (or not cover) it will be of major importance. If they make a big deal out of it like they did with the Clinton BJ, it will matter.

If they frame it like the Dems are just being mean, it won't have much impact. We'll see...

[kentuck]

4. They will do whatever the Repubs tell them to do...

Repubs control the media in stories such as this. Richard Nixon was a fluke. They were caught flat-footed. It won't happen again.

[librechik]

8. It didn't do much in the Scotty McClellan case. They still act like they are gods

and we are mere turds under their feet. Even after he testified under oath. With them it's always So what? So you caught us. What are you going to do about it? And the answer is always "NOTHING!"

[tekisui]

2. Every step is worthy in it's own right.

Kucinich is going to bring in scholars and witnesses. It will be taped and aired, and entered into the public record. That alone is of great worth and praiseworthy. And, it is one more hurdle jumped towards accountability.

One day, the War Criminals will be charged and convicted of their crimes. It may not be before January '09, but this foundation is a pre-requisite.

[redqueen]

5. Exactly. And we need this hearing to be about the article, and only that...

not an unfocused media circus about the many, many abuses of power that have happened under Bu$hCo.

[tekisui]

7. This is about War Crime #1.

Illegal War waged on Lies for Profit.

That is the War Crime, it is all that is needed to lock him up.

[redqueen]

10. Yes... but Conyers wants to muddy the waters.

Weird that he'd want to do that...

:think:

[onenote]

11. its not DK's choice as to who testifies.

Who testifes will be decided by the Judiciary Committee and its staff. DK can recommend people, but its not his decision.

[Bacchus39]

3. I think the most likely scenario would be for Bush to be impeached after the election

in the House. the Senate would likely never take up the issue and he would serve out his term.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Senate could still follow through after 1/20 -

wouldn't remove Bush from office, but it could prevent him from taking any further government job, stop his government retirement, other minor, symbolic punitive measures. Maybe even open the door for criminal prosecution.

[tekisui]

12. That's the key. Opens the door.

We need to keep taking every step forward to accountability. Extingush all options. Never Give Up.

[totodeinhere]

13. Prosecution after he leaves office is the only way to go.

He is a multimillionaire and he wouldn't even miss that pension.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. As I said, "symbolic punitive measures". nt

[totodeinhere]

16. I want more than a "symbolic" measure.

I want to see his ass in jail.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. From your lips to god's ears.

(can't say the same for myself, being an atheist, but the hope is shared.)

[onenote]

9. the vote itself means nothing more than the votes on the previous DK resolutions

which also were referred to the Judiciary Committee.

What is supposed to be different this time is that the Judiciary Committee is going to conduct a hearing (or hearings). But these won't be impeachment hearings, they won't specifically focus on DK's resolution, and they won't be "legislative" hearings culminating with a vote by the Committee to refer DK's resolution or recommend the commencement of an actual impeachment inquiry. They will be "oversight" hearings to review the failings and misdeeds of the chimpy gang. DK will get a chance to testify, but the hearings are not specifically on his resolutions.

I think holding hearings are a good thing and will help Democrats in the fall elections -- which is what the goal of holding them really is. But I think its wishful thinking and naieve to think that these hearings will lead to impeachment.

[ZombieHorde]

14. It's not real if it's not on TV.

[NashVegas]

18. I Concur

I can't see that it accomplishes anything beyond a "We don't like Bush," statement. Perhaps those people plan to use it as some sort of political cover in hopes it will excuse their 2-8 years of lameness.