Impeachment question

[Orrex]

If by some miracle the Dems retake the majority, would they be able to initiate impeachment procedings against Dubya for the, oh I don't know, take your pick?

Not saying that they would initiate it or that it would be successful, but could they impeach him for wrongs committed during his first term? What if his terms were non-consecutive?

Of course, Repubs are already on record admitting that Clinton's impeachment was 'payback' for Nixon's, so I'm sure that they'd impeach the next Dem President when the got the chance.

Thanks for any info. I'm really unclear on the rules governing eligibility for impeachment.

[paineinthearse]

1. Impeachment proceedings begin in the House Judiciary Committee

Currently chaired by Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.

There are articles filed with the House and referred there TODAY. Because Sensenbrenner chooses to ignore them, nothing is happening.

If the Dems take the House in 06, Coyners will be the chair, then we will rock and roll.

Now, who's for taking back the House?

edited to correct state - sorry, Michigan.

[Orrex]

2. Doh! Like I said--really unclear.

Unless you meant the Senatehouse Judiciary Committee...

Thanks for the info.

[gumby]

7. What's unclear?

paineinthearse clearly and correctly responded that impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives.

You replied, "Unless you meant the Senatehouse Judiciary Committee." That makes no sense at all.

Furthermore, it is my conclusion that Nixon was taken out by the right-wing of his own party, not the pink-tutu-opposition. The Democrats were FORCED by the RIGHT to proceed on impeachment.

That's TOTALLY different than impeaching Clinton for sex.

[Orrex]

12. Did anyone else think I was serious?

I figured that "Senatehouse" was sufficiently and self-evidently ridiculous that no one would think I really meant that such an edifice exists.

Get it?

Regardless of your conclusions, Republicans are on record claiming retaliation.

No shit it's different from impeaching Clinton for sex. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us. If I need that level of insightful commentary, I'll hang out on FreeRepublic.

And actually, Clinton wasn't impeached for sex; sex was merely the media-attracting figurehead of the massive (and by now well-documented) impeachment campaign against him.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Plus, don't forget

that Nixon resigned before he was impeached. So I don't get the "payback" thing. :shrug:

[Orrex]

17. Henry Hyde

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/clinton_impeachment_hyde_abc_yanks_422.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042205X.shtml

http://newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:109771

and elsewhere.

The word is always quoted as "payback." Hyde didn't use the word himself, but he gave a clear non-denial when it was proposed.

So, I was incorrect to use the term "Nixon's" in my original post without clarification. It wasn't Nixon's impeachment but, I suppose, the fact that he was forced to resign when his crimes were brought to light. That's what the "payback" was for.

[MuseRider]

4. Conyers?

Oooooh baby. They will be stealing votes right and left to prevent this from happening.

[ginnyinWI]

10. No it is Wisconsin

I should know--he represents my district! He'll have a challenger next time--Bryan Kennedy (D) who got half as many votes as S. did last time, but he's trying again and starting way earlier.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. I hope he gets the seat

That would be cool so we can do impeachment hearings.

[billyoc]

3. Here's a gem from the past

1868: President Andrew Johnson, for corrupt use of veto power, interfering with elections and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Acquitted by the Senate, which was just one vote short of the two-thirds needed to convict.

A supermajority in the senate is a little out of reach in '06, though.

[POAS]

5. I remember learning during the Clinton impeachment

that even an ex-president can be impeached after he is out of office. This would have no practical effect but would serve to record for history the level of dissatisfaction that existed at that moment in time.

[wurzel]

6. According to Raw Story this is in process

See: AfterDowningstreet.org

[ginnyinWI]

8. I'd just turn him over to the International Court

They'd know what to do!

[FreedomAngel82]

15. I'm sure they'd be tougher too wouldn't they?

They're non-partisan aren't they? I'd love the international court to deal with W and company.

[PATRICK]

9. Here's two possibilities

Either the Dems intend to duck going after the Bushistas to merely settle with (somehow) getting the whole power institution back. OR it would be easier and safer(remember how Nixon was freaking out during his dark days) to suddenly "discover" all the Bush crimes after he crawls out of office unmandated. They could even ship him off to the Hague.

I'd be waving a handkerchief as his junk steamer left shore with him and his pals in manacles in the leaky hold.

It seems to me the powerless Dems are really sliding away from the "I" word as they are many other things, accepting the victory of spin and RW perception with something more than dumbfounded humility. Of course this is the attitude that let things get so bad the entire nation and its concomitant myths have been gutted.

[cssmall]

11. Exactly what they are, possibilities.

Remember, this would be another "revolution." Be careful to play the politics cards right because that could create a massive schism. Look back at Cromwell and then the Glorious Revolution in Britian. The point is: rank and file will see this as an ultimate betrayal of their trust, with or without election fraud.

That being said, there should be a formal inquiry; however, are we even sure that we can win in 06? From where I stand, our culture has gone and gotten itself all religious after the swingin' 90s. Also, it's not like Bush truly has done anything and why in the name of God would you want Cheney? I'm not being an apologist, I just being a realist here. It's all fine and dandy, but what you do is wait until 08 when the next election comes up and then ship it over to the Hague and hope that they can do something with it.

Of course, then another problem is compounded here. President Bush is just that, president. It is going to be exceedingly hard to get this to stick, especially with the lawyers he can hire. Plus, say we lose 08, then we're fucked in the sense that if this DOES occur, thanks to a Dem senate and house, then partianship comes out again and the next Republican president declares that the US and its leaders do NOT have to answer to crimes from the Hague, which is always a possibility. However, to counteract all this bullshit that could arise, something needs to get done.

So until further news and until anything else, keep trying but you better stop, as Axel Rose once said, dragging your heels with a bitch called hope cause that undertow will drag you along.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. What would it be like

and how would you go about getting the international court to deal with him, Blair and the rest of them?

[PATRICK]

18. Massively complicated

which is why I am fairly sure most Dem leaders suppress even the wildest fleeting imagination of such an option. You don't abdicate fighting such evil for so long because you have a "secret plan" and then suddenly change the pattern of avoidance.

Our saintly Dems seem incapable of dreaming of or even employing competents who do- have such schemes. Bishop Augustine of Hippo, the Vandals at the gates of his city had this to say about his general who suddenly answered a vocation to become a monk in the desert.

Now is not the time and the first duty was to fight. But what do we get from that incident? Only the abused notion of a "just war".

Journalists abdicate journalism for infotainment drafted as propaganda. Politicians abdicate politics and service to the nation to become courtiers masking as our representatives. Churches abdicate religion to cater to the world of power.

For a nation to hand over the head of the beast it must come to face ALL the monster that kept it alive. Since we are not laid low and occupied by a victorious foreign power it seems light years away to expect our willing accountability even in the token form of punishing the Bush administration.

Maybe after all this the Dems still have feeble dreams it will wither away quietly on its own? And the butcher's bill grows cosmic.