Impeachment without blinders

[cali]

If Conyers introduced articles of Impeachment today, they'd fail in the House. I support introducing them whatever the political fallout because I don't see that Congress can let the gross transgressions of bushco slide. And anything other than Impeachment just doesn't hold them accountable, but I'm under NO illusions that the House would impeach. Everything we know today, strongly indicates that impeachment would not pass. There are 50 blue dogs and freshman dems from conservative districts. Put simply, they won't vote for it. Forget conviction in the Senate. They'd never even get the chance. However, as someone pointed out in another thread, impeaching Clinton hardly hurt the repubs. Yes, it's riskier for the dems; the MSM would likely go on the offensive and paint it as payback for Clinton, and it could well endanger the dems in '08.

As I said, I support impeachment despite the risks. After all, if they don't impeach, they're setting the bar for impeachment to ridiculous heights.

If bushco isn't subject to impeachment, what President ever would be?

[radfringe]

1. also by NOT impeaching

they are in essence APPROVING of bush/cheney actions and thereby have expanded presidential powers.

now imagine these powers in the hands of someone WORSE than bush/cheney...

[cali]

2. Hard to imagine anyone worse

than bush/cheney, but I'd have to agree that not impeaching is setting a truly dangerous precedent.

[OzarkDem]

3. We didn't think anyone could be worse than Nixon

Sadly, the GOP always seems to strive to exceed expectations.

[radfringe]

13. just think of a bush/cheney administration WITHOUT incompetence

just blind ambition, and the ability to follow it through

[LeftCoast]

4. The rw noise machine would take a failure to impeach as an exoneration of Bush

You really want that?

[cali]

7. No, of course I don't want that and I expressed my awareness

of that in my OP. I do believe, however, it's necessary to take that risk. Not impeaching when a president has so grossly committed impeachable offense, is just too dangerous.

[LeftCoast]

9. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's not 'taking a risk' if you know the outcome

ahead of time. I would rather see nothing happen than for them to be exonerated. Look, DA's don't take a case to trial if they aren't pretty sure they can win.

Investigations are continuing and as recent resignations show are having an impact which seems to be moving up the food chain. We may not have time to investigate the entire sordid Bush-affair and impeach while he is still in office. There's nothing to say we can't continue after they're out of office and in fact we should. If these people are TRULY going to be held accountable, then we need to do this the right way and not rush the job and f* it up.

[ThomWV]

5. It would open the discussion, and americans would be swayed, and the trial would be successful

[cali]

8. It wouldn't get to the trial phase.

Sorry, that's just reality. The odds are STRONGLY against impeachment getting through the House. Don't delude yourself about that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Unless congress manages to hear the general roar of approval

from the public. Kinda like 'Horton Hears a Who'.

A tiny voice reaching the Capitol

"Impeach"

And the congressmen gasp with wonder - "There really ARE people out there!"

[bryant69]

6. That's a fair argument

I'm not sold but you are firmer ground than a lot of other pro Impeachment people, it strikes me.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Toots]

10. "and it could well endanger the dems in '08"

Big whoop....IMO they should be endangered. They have become accomplices in the biggest crime syndicate to take over America...What is the difference whether Republicans get their way or Republicans get their way? The current crop of "Democrats" have turned me off to voting for any of the corrupt SOBs..

[lonestarnot]

14. Then fucking vote for Dennis!

[Senator]

11. Still Too Pessimistic

I understand and agree with what you're saying -- that even a "failed in the House" impeachment is necessary.

But the only thing we "know" about blue dogs and freshmen dems -- and GOP Senators for that matter -- is that they don't want to be put on the spot. Forced to make the tough vote. Isn't it at least moderately possible, that when push comes to shove, even elected officials might choose not to defend criminality and/or war criminality over the US Constitution? That they might not want to walk into history in lockstep with bushcheneyism?

I think the chances of success are far better than the Euphemedia Impeachophobes would have us believe.

Chuck Hagel did not discuss impeachment earlier this year as reckless Dem partisanship, but as a possible necessary reaction to things he himself opposed. The Senate voted 90-9 in favor of the McCain Anti-Torture Law (sadly, and impeachably, negated by Rule by Signing Statement). And Warner, Graham, and McCain refused to absolve the regime when passing the Military Commissions Act.

Those are things we know.

---