Question about Impeachment.

[rabies1]

First of all, I like Senator Bernie Sanders.
I agree with almost 90% with his views on issues but he is against Impeachment.
I respect his point of view but if he is one of the congressmen who work for US
and we want to go forward with impeachment, shouldn't he vote to impeach?
What do you think?

(Or do you think he will still vote for it, he just doesn't believe it will succeed).

[ClassWarrior]

1. Senators don't vote to IMPEACH. Representatives do.

So whatever Sanders said, he's just expressing his opinion.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. First

Sanders can't vote to impeach - he's a Senator.

Second, there is no national will to impeach.

[phen43]

3. I agree

[ClassWarrior]

5. If you study history, you learn that there's never been a national will to do...

...most of the important things we've done as a nation. Hell, even the glorious American Revolution was opposed by the majority of the goode folkes who liked it just fine under Britain's flag.

NGU.

[peacetheonlyway]

7. BULLL Crap in washington state there is a petition of 30,000 people

and there was NO opposition to our impeachment measure brought before the senate earlier in the year.


NO OPPOSITION to impeaching in the state of washington and Vermont/New mexico similar deals.

you have your facts wrong buddy.

[onenote]

24. reality check on the Washington impeachment measure

If truly there was no opposition to the Washington state impeachment measure "brought before the senate earlier in the year" why, after 8 months is it still languishing in committee with no chance of it moving? Maybe because the claim that there is no opposition is hyperbole. As this story indicates, the hearing on the measure was boycotted by repubs and even leading Democrats acknowledge that there is zero chance that the measure will get a vote in the state senate.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003596868_impeach02m.html

[peacetheonlyway]

42. THE DOER IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE CRITIC

watch me.

watch linda boyd

watch eric oemig.

there have been HUGE #'s of senators siding with the resolution.

it will get reintroduced january and it will win.

and you can go take your monkey elsewhere when that happens.

i'm right and I know it.

[merh]

8. Impeachment is not a "will of the people"

action - it is a legal action established by the founding fathers to maintain the constitutionally established balance of powers.

You need to stop making everything political. People with your mindset (to include our elected leaders on both sides of the aisle) are the reason why our nation is in such distress. Party over the constitution. It would help if you (as in collective "you") would get your head out of the partisan sands and start to recognize the power of the constitution and the authority and duty our elected leaders have to protect and defend same, and to enforce the provisions wisely contained in same.

And it depends on what polls you review relative to the legitimacy of your statement, but I suppose you haven't quite figured out yet that the administration has been controlling the message and the messengers for some time now.

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

[ClassWarrior]

9. How true merh...

And I love the Shaw quote.

:hi:

NGU.

[merh]

10. How are you CW!

:hi:

I'm glad you appreciate the quote. I think it is appropriate for so many reasons.

NGU! :patriot:


:hug:

[ClassWarrior]

11. I am well, my friend. I hope you are too.

:hug:

NGU. :patriot:

[MonkeyFunk]

12. The assertion was made

that "we" want impeachment, therefore Sanders should go along with the will of the people.

The people are not clamoring for impeachment.

[ClassWarrior]

13. The last time the people "clamored" for anything, it was...

...a Cabbage Patch doll.

:rofl:

The polls don't say anything about "clamoring," but they do show the people want IMPEACHMENT investigations.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Investigations are one thing

impeachment is another.

I've seen no evidence that the majority of Americans want Bush impeached now.

[rabies1]

15. Nixon, Clinton .....

From what I understand, Impeachment is just a charge, a warrant sort of, calling Bush/Cheney on the carpet. After Impeachment charges are brought, they start to investigate by gathering what documents & evidence they need. Why do you think most Americans aren't clamoring for impeachment? If you put Bush/Cheney behavior next to that of Clinton or Nixon haven't they done worse? Why don't you think Impeachment will work pr should be brought to the table? I don't understand it.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. In both cases

the investigations had already occurred before there was any talk of impeachment in the House.

Nixon had already been investigated by the Senate Watergate Committee, and Clinton had already been investigated by Ken Starr. The facts were already gathered, THEN impeachment became viable.

You don't impeach, then investigate. You investigate, then impeach.

I don't think impeachment will work now because there aren't 17 Republican senators who would vote to convict. I doubt there's even a majority of the House that would vote to impeach.

[rabies1]

32. See I thought you brought the charges of Impeachment first.

I remember when Clinton was, they tried and tried but they couldn't really find anything on him. Isn't there way more against Bush Cheney to go ahead? Maybe it wont survive the initial voting but shouldn't it at least be brought to the table? - Just sick of their sh*t.

[ClassWarrior]

20. Semantics.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. You think

impeachment=investigation?

It doesn't. you investigate first, then you impeach. In the same way, a prosecutor doesn't indict someone, then convene a grand jury to figure out what to charge them with.

[cuke]

23. Semantics deals with the meaning of words

Some people just don't care what the words actually mean. Their slogans are more important

[rabies1]

30. Slogans or just the SENTIMENT?

I don't think it's just repeating slogans or bumper stickers.

[cuke]

37. Yeah, but I thnk of it more as EMOTION

I think there's a lot of reactionaries on DU. Just say one of a few "signal" words (ex. Hillary, DLC, corporatists, etc) and the rabid attack

[rabies1]

39. You've got that right! Holy cow!

[ClassWarrior]

25. Sorry if I confused anyone when I used the word "IMPEACHMENT"...

...as shorthand for "IMPEACHMENT process." I need to remember that some people are easily confused.

:eyes:

NGU.

[cuke]

26. So you want investigations to go first

but you're pissed because investigations are occurring first

[ClassWarrior]

27. Read a book some time.

The IMPEACHMENT process begins with IMPEACHMENT investigations - that is, investigations specifically with the purpose of determining whether IMPEACHABLE offenses have be committed:

http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Impeachment-Founders-Cure-Royalism/dp/1595581405/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7739989-8424660?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193598120&sr=8-1

And I'm THRILLED the heroes in our Dem Congress are conducting the investigations they are conducting.

Jump to conclusions much?

NGU.

[cuke]

28. So what's your complaint?

The investigations are ongoing

[ClassWarrior]

29. Apart from confused posters who inject themselves into...

...other people's conversations? And the fact that our Dem Congress still hasn't begun IMPEACHMENT investigations? And the fact that we're still occupying Iraq?

Not much. What's yours?

:shrug:

NGU.

[cuke]

31. What's the diff?

A rose is a rose.

And when did this become a private convo? I thougt this was a public forum

[ClassWarrior]

33. Are you even bothering to read the posts on this thread?

Please go back and read post #27: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3652268&mesg_id=3655280

Then read the book I recommend there. It helps to know what one is talking about.

And I never said it's not a public forum. You're the one who asked what's my complaint. So I answered. If you don't want to know, next time don't ask.

:shrug:

NGU.

[cuke]

34. And again, what's the diff

The post you link doesn't explain what relevant differences there are. We have investigations looking into things like the politicization of the DOJ, illegal surveillance, and a number of other impeachable offenses.

Making references to a book without explaining yourself is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority, which is a Logical Fallacy

And I asked what your complaint about not having the impeachment process started was about, not about my participation in this thread.

[ClassWarrior]

35. Apparently it's difficult...

...for limited minds to comprehend a confusing sentence like, "The IMPEACHMENT process begins with IMPEACHMENT investigations - that is, investigations specifically with the purpose of determining whether IMPEACHABLE offenses have be committed."

Sorry I can't help more. :shrug:

NGU.

[cuke]

36. And with only a minority supporting impeachment

how many will say that there are impeachable offenses?

It seems, if I understand you correctly, that you want an investigation into whether the things being investigated are impeachable offenses, not merely investigations into the matters.

Don't you think it's putting the cart before the horse to ask whether incomplete investigations that havent yet revealed all there is to reveal should be cut short and that we should go ahead with incomplete evidence? If the evidence that's been uncovered by these investigations have not yet convinced enough representatives to call for impeachment proceedings, then what makes you think they would conclude that impeachable offenses have been committed?

It's not as if they're unaware of these crimes. They just know they don't have enough to impeach

[ClassWarrior]

45. Why do you seem to want to confuse the issue?

What would you gain from people not having a clear understanding of this?

NGU.

[cuke]

46. I have no idea what you are referring to

and no idea why you place so much importance on having an impeachment committee look into whether or not impeachable offenses have taken place.

[ClassWarrior]

48. Because that's how it works?

:eyes:

Read a book.

NGU.

[cuke]

49. Yes, one comes before the other. So what?

You seem to think you have some powerful argument there, but you are unwilling to let anyone in on it.

Good luck with that strategy

[ClassWarrior]

50. Why are you so afraid to read a book?

It's not an "argument." It's the Constitution. :shrug: Why are you so intent on trying to muddy the waters?

NGU.

[cuke]

51. Why are you afraid to put it into your own words?

And why do you assume that I haven't read the book?

[ClassWarrior]

52. For the THIRD time...

From post #27: "The IMPEACHMENT process begins with IMPEACHMENT investigations - that is, investigations specifically with the purpose of determining whether IMPEACHABLE offenses have be committed." {checking my pockets... yep, them's my own words...}

And if you HAVE read the book, you need to work on that reading comprehension.

NGU.

[cuke]

53. And why do you consider that fact relevant?

No one has claimed that the impeachment process begins with something other than impeachment investigations.

So what?

[ClassWarrior]

54. So what? You tell me. You're the one who butted into another conversation...

...asking questions. All I've been trying to do is answer them.

:rofl:

NGU.

[cuke]

55. No, each of the 3 times you've said the same thing

read the book

But it's OK. I can do this as long as you like. I got plenty of time

[MonkeyFunk]

40. Wrong

they're not "impeachment investigations". They're investigations.

The Senate Watergate Hearings weren't impeachment hearings (obviously, as they were conducted by the Senate).

To have an impeachment hearing, you'd have to lay out exactly which officials broke which laws on which dates. You need evidence backing up that assertion - witnesses, documents, etc.

That's the stuff investigations produce. Once the investigations produce such evidence, then it's time to have an impeachment hearing.

[ClassWarrior]

43. Hey, sorry to cloud anyone's beautiful mind with the facts.

http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Impeachment-Founders-Cure-Royalism/dp/1595581405/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7739989-8424660?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193598120&sr=8-1

:shrug:

NGU.

[rabies1]

44. Hasn't illegal wiretapping, for instance, been proven in court?

And what about outing a CIA agent - isn't that a form of treason?
Can't these things be proven - they are extremely serious crimes aren't they?
See, then I don't understand WHY they can't go ahead and Impeach.
I just want to understand here.

[cuke]

47. There is not enough evidence to pin it on *

While * has said he has authorized wiretapping, he has not ever taken responsibility for any wiretapping that is illegal. IMO, we can now prove that illegal wiretapping took place, but to impeach you have to prove the * not only ordered wiretapping, but that he ordered the illegal wiretapping and knew that his order was illegal

wrt Plame - there is no evidence that * did anything illegal. People in his admin, like Rove, may have done something illegal, but there's no evidence that I can think of that shows that * ordered others to reveal Plame's identity.

We know the * admin has committed grave crimes. There is proof that these crimes were committed. What we don't have is the proof that * knowingly and deliberately ordered these illegal acts.

[cuke]

41. Many here think it's a "leftist vs centrist" split

It's really "reactionary vs deliberative" split

[cali]

16. Actually in Vermont there's long been a lot of clamoring

going on. Numerous towns have passed resolutions calling for Impeachment, as has our State Senate.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. I'm looking at public opinion polls

They don't show that Americans want Bush impeached now.

[cali]

19. i'm not talking about the rest of the country

and this tread did specifically mention Bernie, so I think what Vermonters feel on the subject, is germane.

[hlthe2b]

4. I think there are several things going on...

but it is only with very honorable honest members of Congress, like Sanders that it becomes so enigmatic. His stance may simply mean that the totality of all that is wrong with this country and that needs to be immediately addressed has made him a pragmatist--convinced him that we just don't have the luxury to take time for what will likely not succeed. (I don't agree, just playing devils advocate).


What scares me more is the possibility that he thinks it is too risky to proceed-- that possibly he and others like him know something, something so horrendous to fathom that they can not risk it happening. Say for instance they have the belief (or perhaps been given notice) that retribution of the most devastating manner will result if they move to impeach (e.g., a nuclear attack on Iran or Russia, or?) or perhaps another attack on the US that we might (once again) be slow to respond?

:shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. It's November

Whether or not one wants to impeach the calendar is Bush*'s friend...

[cuke]

21. You may want to pick up a history book someday

Try The Federalist Papers.

The Senate was designed to NOT represent the majority's passions of the moment. It was deliberately constructed to be able to withstand public opinion and instead act as a deliberative body and NOT a representative one. That's why Senators were originally elected by US Representatives and not "we, the people".

[LWolf]

38. Have you checked in

on this thread, running concurrently?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3648952

As a Senator, he can express support or opposition, but he can't vote to impeach. That happens in the House.

I think he should support impeachment.

[rabies1]

56. It looks like this is the only way though, to stop the attack on Iran.

It's over for us if this is allowed to happen.
Gas at 10.00 a gallon. We will be at war for at least 10 years.
China might call in our debt. Russia will fight along with Iran.
this could easily be WWIII!
What do you think will happen to the quality of our lives?
This is at a critical level now.

[LWolf]

57. I support impeachment.

That's why I support Dennis Kucinich, who has already introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney.

Here's some of his recent comments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x65586