Can we have a "Senators don't impeach so stop ragging on the Senate for not impeaching" group?

[eyesroll]

Criminy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

The sole power to impeach lies with the House. They're like the county prosecutor. If there is no impeachment, bitch at the House.

The Senate acts as a jury once impeachment has already occurred. If there is an impeachment and no conviction (and the evidence supports conviction), bitch at the Senate.

Now, I understand I may be in the minority here because I don't want my jury lobbying the prosecutor for an indictment. I don't want my jury's mind made up about a conviction before the trial (and I know my analogy between an impeachment and a standard criminal prosecution is imperfect, but still)... but can we at least agree to stop telling people like Senator Feingold that his censure resolution is evil and enabling because it's not impeachment? Censure is probably all the Senate can do.

The level of vitriol directed (today, yesterday, for the last couple of years) at Senators who CANNOT impeach for not doing what they cannot do here is scary.

[ccpup]

1. but ... but ...

it's so much easier to be angry and bitch and complain than to find out the facts and THEN bitch and complain at the right people. :eyes:

[AntiFascist]

96. Exactly, but I think there is also disruption at play....

some of those threads bitching about the Senate are so depressing, together with the somewhat unrelated FISA bitching, people could get really discouraged when. In fact, they should see the censure resolution for what it is: not necessarilly an alternative to impeachment.

[Deep13]

2. Wasn't there a similar provision as Feingold's introduced in the House?

:shrug:

[eyesroll]

7. I believe so...but that's not the point. Bitch all you want to the House for not impeaching.

Although I think I'm also in the minority because I don't think a censure resolution is necessarily a bad thing in the House. Yes, it's not impeachment, but it's not a vote of confidence, either.

[EFerrari]

3. And there's no interplay between the House and the Senate, right?

:eyes:

[eyesroll]

9. Of course there is...but no amount of interplay changes what the Senate can and can't do. n/t

[EFerrari]

12. The legalistic argument doesn't hold up because we know

these people strategize together.

Maybe I'm just the wrong person to ask to back off from demanding these felons be impeached.

[asthmaticeog]

17. No one's asking you to back off from demanding these felons be impeached.

FUCK YEAH, they should be impeached. You're merely being asked to understand that no amount of "strategizing" changes what the Senate is constitutionally permitted to do. Nor does it change the fact that 67-50=17.

[EFerrari]

19. My only point is, there is no boundary between House and Senate

Democrats that should deter us from asking both for what we want.

[asthmaticeog]

30. There absolutely is a boundary between the House and Senate.

Members of the House, for example, cannot vote in the Senate. Which leaves us stuck trying to get 17 Republican Senators to vote to convict in an impeachment.

[EFerrari]

34. Okay. We're talking at cross purposes and maybe I'm not being clear.

Pressure on the party is pressure on the party. And motivation to find, court or otherwise accrue votes.

I'm not disputing the Constitutional requirements but only drawing attention to the uses of influence.

[asthmaticeog]

45. OK, gotcha.

Still, while I support leaning on them to hold the opposition accountable (though considering FISA, it seems they'd rather help the opposition move goalposts), none of that gets 17 Republican Senate votes to convict. And a failed impeachment has enormous destructive capabilities given a hostile media, which is another thing we can't fix in 18 months.

[EFerrari]

51. I'm sorry if I've been unclear. And you know, historically,

the party that moves to impeach hasn't suffered. :shrug:

But I understand (I think!) that after being out of power for so long, the Democrats want to be careful when they could be looking at massive gains in 2008.

It's just frustrating in the context of the most corrupt administration we've likely ever tried to endure. Endure, hell -- tried to survive. :(

[eyesroll]

20. I'm not saying back off--I'm saying don't condemn the Senate for not doing something they can't.

If they're strategizing together, they're strategizing privately.
But there are people here actually telling Feingold he's a coward for not impeaching.

He can't impeach.

Period.

If he introduces Articles of Impeachment, the parlimentarian (or however that's handled in the Senate) will smack him down. There is nothing he can do within his own body.

On edit: I'm not even saying don't ask your Senators for impeachment (although I personally wouldn't -- see my jury analogy, above) -- I'm saying don't bitch at them for not doing it. Which people are.

[EFerrari]

22. I don't expect Russ to impeach all by himself. lol

But, imho, it can't hurt to keep the pressure on -- even on people that I respect as much as I respect him.

[Cathyclysmic]

21. It's not about backing off; it's about not looking like a fucking idiot in political discussion.

[EFerrari]

23. Thank you for your concern.

lol

[BlooInBloo]

24. The fact that they simply don't have the power is "legalistic"?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

27. Yes, it is. Go ahead and laugh, that's cool. lol

But pressure on the party is pressure on the party. How the hell else can we get this moved forward?

[BlooInBloo]

29. Pressure = good. Blame for things not within their power = bad....

... "Your honor! I couldn't have committed the murder! I was in another state!" "Don't give me any of your legalistic arguments!"

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

31. We don't disagree on that. I just think it's silly as hell to let up

on anyone at this point.

They do talk to each other, ya know?

[BlooInBloo]

33. It's true. They do talk to each other.

[EFerrari]

36. Thank you. That's all I meant to point out. I'm going to walk my dog now.

lol

[BlooInBloo]

37. heh!

[asthmaticeog]

4. I'm in.

I'm not gonna get tired of posting that. Like ever.

[tandot]

6. Now that IS funny.

:rofl:

[xultar]

11. tee hee hee.

[Zywiec]

25. LOL - That is AWESOME!!

:rofl:

I wonder if anyone will be able to identify themselves...

[Richardo]

5. .

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Thanks, Eyesroll

but you won't have much luck here.

It's Shark Week on DU, and the school is in a feeding frenzy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. With regards to impeachment....

The House is the Grand Jury, and impeachment is an indictment. The Senate is the jury trial, with the responsibility to investigate the indictment, determine whether the evidence is sufficient and, if so, to convict on the indictment. With no indictment, there can be no trial.

Until and unless Pelosi puts impeachment back on the table -- and follows through on that threat -- pissing at the Senate does no good.

Personally, I think it would be sufficient if a clear, well-written explanation were pinned at the top of the General Discussion: Politics group where we can easily find it and link into other threads as appropriate. Moderators?

[LSK]

13. when it comes to Impeachment on DU

Logic and process are not allowed.

[EFerrari]

15. Fantasy doesn't fly either.

The idea that somehow the House and the Senate are in their separate bubbles is somewhat hilarious.

Yes, there is a process set out in the Constitution. And yes, party leadership confer, bicker, negotiate and come to a compromise.

So, there is no reason AT ALL to stop pressuring your senators for impeachment because they have influence in the whole process.

Christ.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. CALL YOUR GOVERNOR!

DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. NOW1!!!!!1

[EFerrari]

18. If you don't ask, the chances of getting what you need are zero.

And then, you've screwn yourself. :hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

26. CALL OPRAH!

DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. NOW!!!1!

[EFerrari]

28. No, thanks. I will continue to do the work that has had good results

so far. The polls are trending in favor of my position, not yours.

Maybe YOU should call Oprah! :)

[robinlynne]

88. SF I'm with you here. Just too angry about FISA to talk about anything else.

wanted to send you a little moral support.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. Placing a reply here for future reference.

(Boy, I'm sure using that subject line a lot lately)

[MonkeyFunk]

70. saying

"Call Oprah" is racist and right-wing? Huh. :shrug:

[greatauntoftriplets]

39. I'm gonna call Mayor Daley!!!

The first one, Richard J., who allegedly stole the 1960 election for JFK. Now THERE was a man who knew how to do things right!!

From Chicago, where even the dead vote early and often.

;)

[EFerrari]

42. He sure did!

lol

:)

[tammywammy]

43. LOL

:rofl:

[LSK]

32. I didnt say stop pressuring them

I just saying thats why its not happening now.

[EFerrari]

38. Well, no. You said we were illogical and unreasonable.

I understand why it looks that way and how annoying that can be.

But the thing is, imho, we have to keep pushing.

It's not personal, LSK, it's just business.

[OzarkDem]

46. Its hard to have a good discussion of impeachment

with some of the half truths, misleading arguments and outright attacks from those who oppose impeachment. I'm very disappointed they don't appear to want to discuss the topic in a rational, reasonable way.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. um....

those who think impeachment now is unwise aren't the ones who demanded (and got) their own group where disagreement is not allowed.

[OzarkDem]

58. Its not a matter of disagreement

its a matter of real discussion instead of baiting and attacking.

[EFerrari]

53. We've been conditioned to the politics of fear.

And we need to shake it off. Now!

[LSK]

56. The only thing I ever am doing is discussing it rationally

I keep saying the votes are not there to do it right now. Does that make me anti-impeachment??? John Conyers knows that a vote now would fail in the house. Does that make him anti-impeachment? Does he want to see it fail in a Committee???

I am trying to talk about it reasonably, but its easier to label me as anti-impeachment I guess.

[EFerrari]

63. I don't, LSK. I understand the kind of calculation that must be made.

On the other hand, the Thugs are RACING away from Junior right now. :shrug:

[LSK]

66. they are when they speak, but not when they vote

Look at Senate all night session vote. After speeches from the likes of Luger, Warner, Alexander about how we should get out of Iraq, they vote against timetables.

[EFerrari]

68. You may be right. But, my gut tells me these guys can't run

fast enough from this miserable failure. He's pissed off both sides of the Thuggery.

And, I'm not Ms. Clio.

[tandot]

14. Thank you, eyesroll.

Get ready for the vitriol that will be directed at you. Good Luck :)

[Marr]

35. Let me see if I've got this straight.

We should stop bitching about Senate Democrats who won't support impeachment, because it's the House that begins the impeachment process.

And we should stop bitching about House Democrats who won't begin impeachment proceedings, because there aren't enough votes for it in the Senate.

I see.

[EFerrari]

41. You have that argument nailed. n/t

[Marr]

61. Yes- I've been so stupid.

It must've been so hard for these well-educated patriots to tolerate my ignorance.

We should all just shut-up and stop demanding things. Why didn't I think of it before? It's so brilliant.

[Blue-Jay]

67. Because that's exactly what the OP was implying, right?

Just shut-up and stop demanding things?

:eyes:

[Marr]

72. Essentially, yes.

The current excuse for not beginning impeachment proceedings in the House, is that there aren't enough votes in the Senate to convict. But the OP says we should stop complaining about Senators who will not support impeachment.

If the sole point of this post was to inform the board that impeachment proceedings begin in the House-- something we all already know-- then I have to assume the OP thinks this board is full of idiots (indeed, he's suggested as much with his "hysterical shrieking" comments as well). We all know where impeachment begins-- but we also know that the two houses of Congress work in tandem.

[eyesroll]

78. I never said we shouldn't talk to the HOUSE.

That's where it starts.

I'm not even saying don't talk to your Senators about impeachment.

I am saying don't just bitch into the air, threaten to withhold funding, call Feingold a traitor, etc., because he/they are not impeaching.

BTW: I'm a she -- and I don't recall typing "hysterical shrieking" although I suppose I could be wrong; I'll assume you're paraphrasing -- and yes, there are some people on this board who don't know (or, more likely, don't care) that Senators do. not. impeach. Does that mean I think this board is full of idiots? :shrug:

[Marr]

82. You're right- it was someone else who made the

"hysterical shrieking" comment. My apologies.

[Exultant Democracy]

40. For real. I feel like a broken record already.

[OzarkDem]

44. Anti impeachment crowd causing a lot of good Dems to leave DU

Maybe its time to cool the attacks on those loyal, long time Dems who happen to differ with you on impeaching Gonzo, Cheney and/or Bush.

[asthmaticeog]

47. I don't see any "anti-impeachment" crowd.

I see the most rabid of the pro-impeachment people hysterically shrieking "YOU'R EANTI IMPEACH AND TEH TRAITOR TO DEM!!!1~!!" whenever someone points out that there aren't enough votes in the Senate to convict. NOBODY is against holding these fucking criminals accountable. Your criticism of an "anti-impeachment crowd" that's forcing "good Dems" (or is it "true Scotsmen?") to leave DU is at once a pathetic straw man and a transparent false binary.

[Lerkfish]

50. I almost never type that badly.

just sayin.

[asthmaticeog]

52. You caught me.

Indulging in a wee straw man of my own, there, huh? ;)

[Lerkfish]

55. I"m not allowed to say.

but I do have a question:

do you feel impeachable offenses have not occured?

[asthmaticeog]

74. Did you read my posts on this thread?

OBVIOUSLY they've committed impeachable offenses. I'm not a fucking idiot, Lerkfish.

[Lerkfish]

75. not sure why asking you that question makes you think I'm calling you an idiot.

:shrug:
honestly, I'm not doing that.

[H2O Man]

77. I think it's a valid

question to ask anyone/everyone who is participating in a thread on impeachment. Though you were not asking me directly, I'd like to take the opportunity to respond: I think that several members of the administration have engaged in activities that warrent impeachment.

[asthmaticeog]

81. So it's not a leading question, then?

I've been in this argument a zillion times by now - if you weren't going that way, I apologize for my reaction, it was unfair to just assume that you were going to be the zillion-and-first.

But yes, they have plainly committed impeachable offenses. Hell, they should have been impeached in their FIRST term, even. I wish we had the votes. I wish we had a congress that wasn't apparently too overcautious to hold them SOMEHOW accountable if impeachment isn't feasable. I wish the repercussions of a failed impeachment weren't exponentially worse for Dems now than they were for the GOP when they speciously impeached Clinton. But that's the way it is. I'd write my congresscritter about it, but I live in Kucinich/Tubbs-Jones land, they're on the case. :shrug:

[Lerkfish]

83. the question is not leading to the conclusion that you are an idiot.

the quesion is leading to whether your objection to pro-impeachment people ignorant of the process is coming from your opposition to impeachment itself or those people.

you answered fine in this post, and you answered the question.

Now, since you agree they should be impeached, but you think the political backlash for doing so is a bad thing, then I can discuss it with you.

I posit that doing nothing in the face of evil is a worse sin than failing at doing the right thing.

[asthmaticeog]

97. On a moral level, I'm with you.

If that were the only level at work here, I'd be the loudest, frothiest impeachbot on DU. (Don't assume that epithet applies to you, please.) If we had the votes in the Senate and the same nothing was happening that's happening now I'd be taking leave from work to march up and down the mall in front of congress with a sandwich board that read "WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?"

We don't have the votes in the Senate to convict, and if the FISA vote was any indication, we could well have a deficit of MORE than 17 to make up, and there ain't so much time left in this term to begin with. I want it to happen. I wish it would happen, but I don't see it happening. Kind of like the Gore campaign. ;) Given the timeline, I'm actually more upset that other means of holding the administration to accountability short of impeachment aren't being pursued with significant vigor.

Of course, we're way off-topic for this thread, which is god damn, it sure is appalling how many DUers there are who think impeachment happens in the Senate.

[EFerrari]

54. I haven't seen that. I'm not even a registered Dem and I'd never

do something so stupid and divisive.

If we are going to win this fight, we need to stay together. We have the numbers if we can hold the coalition together.

[H2O Man]

69. I certainly have ....

though only in post #47. Coincidence? What are the odds?

[EFerrari]

71. I'm so glad you're here, H2O Man.

Thank you.

[PeaceNikki]

59. Hey now...

A) there's no "Anti-impeachment crowd" - there are those (like me) who believe it would be an exercise in futility. There's a difference. I'd give my left arm to see Bush and Cheney dragged away in handcuffs and tried for their crimes. I am also a realist and know that impeachment without conviction could be very damaging. I don't want to lose the House and the razor-thin majority in the Senate in '08 because of a failed attempt that would be seen as a partisan witchhunt and create empathy for the sick-fucks.

B) attacks?? Hmm... I've been called: Rove's Butt-whore, a freeper, a putz and a pussy by the "IMPEACH NOW!!" crowd. OK, not really... just by one in particular. And, he claims to have "left" DU.

[eggman67]

87. I keep on trying...

A) there's no "Anti-impeachment crowd" - there are those (like me) who believe it would be an exercise in futility. There's a difference. I'd give my left arm to see Bush and Cheney dragged away in handcuffs and tried for their crimes. I am also a realist and know that impeachment without conviction could be very damaging. I don't want to lose the House and the razor-thin majority in the Senate in '08 because of a failed attempt that would be seen as a partisan witchhunt and create empathy for the sick-fucks.

This is what I can't seem to get through to some people. I just can't see the benefit to failure. And I'm even less optimistic. I don't believe it would ever get to the Senate, because I can't see where they'd get the 218 in the House to even start an inquiry. I mean really, they couldn't defeat the FISA bill but they're gonna pass an impeachment inquiry resolution?

B) attacks?? Hmm... I've been called: Rove's Butt-whore, a freeper, a putz and a pussy by the "IMPEACH NOW!!" crowd. OK, not really... just by one in particular. And, he claims to have "left" DU.

I know just who you mean. Hope his "claim" is true. :)

[Lerkfish]

48. do you feel impeachable offenses have not been committed?

[eyesroll]

62. Didn't say that. All I'm saying is: Senators can't impeach. So don't expect them to.

There are people here who think the Senate is full of traitors because they haven't impeached.

To answer your question directly: Yes, I feel impeachable offenses have been committed. But that's irrelevant to this post.

Impeachment starts -- and ends -- in the HOUSE. Only once the House is done impeaching does the Senate do anything.

[Lerkfish]

73. but why do we have this thread?

If someone says that, call them on it in that thread.

:shrug:

It would be easy to interpret your thread as an argument to shut discussion of impeachment if the people supporting it are ignorant of the correct mechanism.

I'm positing that regardless of mechanism, impeachable offenses have occurred, and we need to start immediately. If people are ignorant of the correct mechanisms, that's beside the point and they can be easily educated. The POINT is to impeach. IF you wish that as well, then by all means lay out a proper and correct course for doing so.

If you don't want to do that, then again, why this thread?

[eyesroll]

76. Because I'm tired of repeating myself and don't have time to post on each

thread (and there are a lot) where people bitch about the Senate not impeaching.
Maybe people would be more "easily educated" if I posted this in each thread where the ignorance you mention appears...but I have work to do and family to feed and all that.

I suppose I'm just frustrated that a scary number of people do not remember 8th Grade Civics.

[Lerkfish]

79. ok

I find it scarier that people who DO understand civics argue against impeachment. (not saying that's you).
I think having the righ INTENT, but lacking the details is a better situation than being a master of details but lacking the WILL to proceed.

[eyesroll]

80. If anything, I'm urging the people who are in favor of it to argue for it in a productive manner.

Telling your Senator you're not donating until s/he signs on as a cosponsor of Articles of Impeachment is counter-productive at best.

Telling your House member the same thing may or may not yield results, but it's a more proper course of action.

It's a big board -- there's room enough for substance threads and process threads. You can't have an impeachment without both substance and process.

[eggman67]

84. It's not a question of will

It's a question of power. More specifically, the lack thereof. I can write & phone my Rep, Allyson Schwarcz. That is the extent of my power. I cannot influence say, Heath Shuler, or any other Blue Dog for that matter they're not going to buck their constituents just to please me sitting up here in Pennsylvania.

Honestly now, given the FISA vote in the House. Do you really think a resolution to direct the Judiciary committee to begin an impeachment inquiry would pass in the house? I don't, and I think the House leadership knows that. If you do, more power to ya we'll just have to agree to disagree. But pressuring people who already agree gains nothing. Does yelling at Pelosi & Conyers somehow make Shuler change his stripes? I don't see how.

If, on the other hand, you agree that such a resolution will fail in the House, then I ask what the benefit of such a failure would be because I see none.

[Lerkfish]

85. because

doing nothing in the face of evil is a worse sin than failing at doing the right thing

[eggman67]

86. Then this is where we disagree

I say a futile gesture in this can does more harm than doing nothing. And if you want to frame it as a moral issue then I say choosing the path that does more harm is the greater sin.

[Lerkfish]

89. leaving a mad dicator unchecked IS the path of greater harm

[eggman67]

90. He'd still be unchecked with a failure

and on top of that he'd be validated.

You think a failure would check him somehow?

[Lerkfish]

91. if impeached, no longer could supbeonas be ignored.

a lot more investigative force could be brought to bear.

but...whatever. It really doesn't matter, this congress will never bring impeachment back onto the table, so our discussion is sadly moot.

[eggman67]

92. I don't think we're talking about the same failure

I don't mean failure to convict in the Senate. I mean failure to pass an impeachment inquiry resolution in the House. That's what launches the investigation and I don't think they have the 218 votes in the House to do even that. A failure at that level would, IMO, be a disaster of mammoth proportions.

And while our discussion is moot, it's also civilized and I thank you for that :toast:

[MonkeyFunk]

93. that is simply untrue

no matter often people repeat it here.

an impeachment committee has no special powers that a regular investigatory committee doesn't have.

[PeaceNikki]

94. I've corrected you on that.

Telekinesis is, in fact, the power bestowed upon them.

[PeaceNikki]

95. People scoff at Feingold's censure attempts, but it is an official condemnation of actions

I fear that failed impeachment will result in them "checked" but wrongly "validated" - causing them to gain empathy while letting all 3 branches of the government slip into the hands of these fucks. We need to stand strong and fight for our country back. Sensibly with forethought and cause... emotion cannot rule our decisions.

[H2O Man]

60. hopefully n/t

[EFerrari]

64. The password is :Hopefully

:)

[Senator]

98. Sure, Just Call It The "Senators Don't Lead Group"

Make it clear that we elect our US Senators to stand mute on topics of public interest and Constitutional defense unless and until some non-specified procedural reality forces them to open a mouth.

This certainly was the case in 2001, when 2 US Senators sat on Meet The Press to explain why they didn't stand with the Black Caucus -- to follow Justice Breyer's instruction in his dissent to the BushvGore edict -- and oppose the unlawful, racist Florida electors.

They said it in unison: "Nobody Asked Us." (?!? -- it was Biden and Kerry, btw.)

It's not like they're our leaders or anything. Or that they're supposed to the public face of the oppposition party. Or ever ask for our support when, say running for President of The Unit... Hey?!?

--

Sorry. But your analogy is way beyond "imperfect." On its own merits, it is a canard. There is no type of "legal proceeding" here. None. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. It has but mere trappings. No presumption of innocence -- no cause for recusal -- no legal, or even moral, restrictions at all. And it is not your jury, it is our jury.

But as a "defense" of a censure resolution, your analogy is virtually oxymoronic. A censure resolution IS a "mind made up" -- functionally against impeachment. It renders a "verdict" and metes out a (non-)punishment.

Censure is decidedly NOT "all the Senate can do." They can censure and demand that the nation do more. They can pass a "Sense of the Senate" resolution to call for just about anything. And as individual Senators, they can choose to defend the regime or join those of us who are demanding tangible objection and opposition.

Sadly, "people like Senator Feingold" are just trying to make it go away. To avoid the demands of his oath of office. To cynically manipulate the electorate/public into believing that his near-non-action is substantive action. Is that better or worse than outright opposition to impeachment on the merits (which he is not doing)? I dunnno.

I do know that it's no reason to give him a pass. No reason to not demand that he simply speak the truth (you know, be honest -- what a concept). If he thinks torture and war crimes are tolerable, he should say so. If he doesn't, he should act to stop them.

If that sounds "vitriolic" to you, so be it.

But even so I don't see the "scary" part.

----

[EFerrari]

99. If I could recommend this post, I would in a heartbeat.

Thank you, Senator.

I am not fooled.