Why is impeachment such a bad word?

[Quixote1818]

I personally don't think we should talk much about it until we get into power, but once we are in we most definitely should impeach. Impeachment has nothing to do with politics, it's about the laws or our country. It's simple:

If Bush broke laws, he should be impeached.

If a kid steels candy from a store, he should be punished.


And that is all I have to say about that.

[Synnical]

1. Nancy

Strong woman.

My three words.

[Quixote1818]

3. I don't have a problem with Nancy

I don't think the issue should be brought up until after the elections. An impeachment will take on a life of it's own regardless of what the Democratic leadership says before or after the elections. Once investigations start, it will just begin to fall into place as the congress follows the laws of the country.

[Mz Pip]

2. If Bush broke laws

he should be Impeached. But I think people are wary of the process because it is involved, time consuming and unless the Dems have 60 sure votes Bush won't be convicted.

I'd rather frog march the creep to the Hague and let an International Court deal with him and Cheney.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Quixote1818]

5. It's interesting to see how Nixon's impeachment unfolded

Just a few months before, no one would have dreamed it would happen. What Bush has done is 1,000 times worse than Nixon. If the process works it's self out, Bush will go down as public awareness grows. I am for investigations then following the law. If our government does that, then Bush will be impeached. Republicans will be ready to wash their hand of Bush as well.

[Mz Pip]

10. Nixon was never Impeached

He resigned first.

THe political climate was different. I just don't see the Republicans turning against Bush the way they did Nixon. Bush is worse than Nixon, but so is the rank and file of elected Republicans. They won't let it happen.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[mmonk]

6. Most Americans live in a vacuum. Without impeachment

hearings, we go on like we've been doing (which isn't good). There is always time to protect the constitution and our form of government. It is a duty, not something one does if it's convenient and not time consuming. If America doesn't make the turn soon, we have to come to the realization we are not a free people. Nothing at all matters more than that. This is not a team game but real life. People are being locked up without charge and mistreated while we debate how important or not it is.

[Jcrowley]

7. Excellent post

It is a duty, not something one does if it's convenient and not time consuming.

It's also a legal obligation. Once one is sworn in it becomes, as you state, the duty of the representative. The language on this is very precise, there is no ambiguity and so to avoid this matter due to some perceived political expediency is not only unforgivable it is unconstitutional.

[Mz Pip]

11. I agree

I just don't see it happening.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Quixote1818]

13. You are 100% correct.

People didn't think it would happen to Nixon either. I think it's going to happen. Just listen to Reobert Kennedy on ring of fire.

[Justice Is Comin]

22. Passion to do the right thing can be derailed by

desire to do the wrong thing.

[BuyingThyme]

4. I can explain:

Most Pukes think an impeachment is when you go to the hospital for a heart transplant, but leave with a peach where your heart should be.

[FloridaPat]

8. The repubs impeached Clinton, but We the People got them to

stop because we didn't want him impeached. We the People got the investigation started on 9-11, much to the disgust of the White House. Maybe We the People can get every single one of those creeps in jail. I have never seen such criminal activity in my life. Maybe if I was born into the Mafia, I couldn't make that statement. But I would bet * and company are worse than any Mafia boss.

[MiniMe]

21. "we the people" didn't get them to stop

It dragged on for years, and he was impeached. However, he was not indicted by the Senate. I vote for them going to jail after they are out of office.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

24. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) leaked the reason for impeachment in '98

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

It's going to turn into a cycle of revenge and counterrevenge.
IMHO, Bush should be turned on a spit in front of a roaring fire for the damage he has done. He better be glad I'm not Speaker of the House.
I honestly don't know if it would help or hurt the country now. But we need healing and not the "give in to their demands or we are deemed cowards" type of crap that has scared some Dems into voting for their issues.
I say let Justice take it's course. We are (should be) a nation of laws, not men.

[dos pelos]

9. The problem is deeper than one bad man

The Senate,almost unanimously,voted for the Military Commisions Act.You can now,by executive whim,be declared a supporter of enemy combatants,because of political views,public or private expressions,giving money to unpopular political causes.To jail you go,without reasonable cause (habeus corpus) being required shown.To jail and thr tribunal without appeal,whatever the sentence.
Our Senate voted for this.Democratic Senators voted for this.You impeach Bush,so what?There is a mass of Quisling enablers in the rest of the congress that will still be there,controlled/owned/directed by big money,big oil,big business.
Impeachment seems gratifying as a gesture.The problem is greater than just removing the face,the spokesperson,the individual manifestation of a great rot.

[mmonk]

15. The MCA must be repealed. How do we get them to do that?

My congressional rep was against it. He understood and understands what it does. Why didn't the chicken hearted in the senate?

[Monkeyman]

12. Why we say it they vote in force we lose

[Jcrowley]

14. The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell
1
The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
2
The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
3
The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
4
The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
5
The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
6
At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
7
If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

[magellan]

16. Agreed 100%

I'd only add for clarity, impeachment is the process of investigating an official for crimes against the public trust, office, and country. It is not necessarily the end result.

Impeachment hearings are started by the House. Their job is the investigatory process. They pass their findings on to the Senate, whose responsibility it is to make the judgment.

Clinton was recommended for impeachment by the House, but the Senate did not agree. IOW Clinton underwent impeachment proceedings but was not impeached.

If the Dems fail to investigate Bush** and his administration, they will only further weaken the foundations of our government.

[OzarkDem]

17. Agree

Shying away from impeachment for "political" reasons is allowing the GOP to determine how we govern. That shouldn't happen.

More than a few Dem leaders need to show some real leadership or fing something else to do.

[madokie]

18. first things first, get in the majority first then do something but only then

[Quixote1818]

19. I agree

I am glad the Dems are not making it an issue yet.

[OzarkDem]

20. I guess I missed the part

where lots of DUers are saying we need to talk about impeachment before the election. I'm not seeing that anywhere. I am seeing a lot of people who are upset that Pelosi seems to have take the discussion off the table completely.

Pelosi is saying no impeachment, period. Do you agree with that?

[razors edge]

23. legally no, but politically yes.

legally it is the responsibility of the congress to investigate and recommend prosecution if warranted.

Politically it is a move that holds little benefit.


No matter how much evidence comes out against bush he will not be imprisoned by the federal government. (think Henry Kissinger)

If you go for bush, Chaney's role in all this will require him to be removed and replaced first with the next president, to impeach both would lead to a dem in the Oval Office finishing out the term and it will give the pubs unlimited campaign mileage in the terms of a coup come 08. you may not buy the coup BS but a lot of voters did buy compassionate conservative.

An impeachment proceeding will fill the congresses' time and the M$M spew and remove all debate and progress on important issues. Nothing will get done and the do nothing democrat BS all comes back into play in 08.

Investigate cheney and haliburton, rove and campaign financing, and cut the head from the beast, leave it on a pike for all to see come 08, for the total incompetence it is. No charge of vindictiveness will hold water and a majority may be established in the opposite of that we see now, allowing the necessary reversal of all the negative effects of the last six years.

Or strike out for blood and hope for the best.

[madokie]

27. I agree, I always like the planned approach myself

chance is what got us here in the first place. if we would have all worked much harder in '99 we would not have to deal with these despots today, methinks

[onenote]

25. actually, impeachment is a political act

Maybe it shouldn't be, but in reality it is and nothing we say or do is going to change that. Two great Democrats offered very telling words about impeachment in 1999 that bear remembering, if for no other reason that if House Democrats were to aggressively pursue impeachment right out of the gate in 2007, the repubs would plaster these statements all over the airwaves and newspapers in order to put Democrats on the defensive. While the fact is that oversight hearings and investigations might -- and its just might -- create a mandate for impeachment, by the time that was to happen it would be 2008 and House members are going to be more interested in running for reelection based on issues like minimum wage, stem cells, lobbying reform, etc. than on impeachment.

Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999 -- "Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999 --"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

[lies and propaganda]

26. I find it the most beautiful word ever.

imho ;)