Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What if 34 GOP Senators Stubbornly Refuse to Convict Bush/Cheney of Impeachable Offenses?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:06 PM
Original message
What if 34 GOP Senators Stubbornly Refuse to Convict Bush/Cheney of Impeachable Offenses?
One of the biggest reasons given for not attempting to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney is that there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict them – and look how the GOP attempt to impeach Clinton backfired in 1998, and how the GOP had to pay for that failed attempt in the mid-term elections.

There are several major problems with that analogy. First of all, when a competent prosecutor considers prosecuting a person for a serious crime, the first issue that is considered is whether or not the evidence exists for a successful prosecution – not whether or not the votes exist. If the evidence exists, then it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to find a way to get the votes. That is done by gathering the evidence and presenting it to the jury in a persuasive manner. Usually jury members will be more likely to convict after they’ve had the evidence presented to them.

The American people expressed their disgust with the failed attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office NOT because the attempt was unsuccessful, but because it was ill advised and irresponsible. The charges against Clinton had nothing to do with his performance in office. And furthermore, a good majority of the American people approved of his performance in office and wanted him to remain in office. None of those things can be remotely said about George Bush and Dick Cheney.


A brief summary of the grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney

The most frequently advocated reasons for impeaching Bush and Cheney are: 1) Lying our country into war with Iraq; 2) Abuse and torture of our prisoners, against international law and the laws of our country; and 3) Warrantless spying on Americans.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has described the basis for those charges in detail, in their book, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush”; and Rep. John Conyers also describes the basis for those charges in his report, “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”.

The amount of evidence to support each of those charges is overwhelming. George Bush himself has publicly admitted his illegal wiretapping activities dozens of times – though he is always careful to accompany those admissions with a lame excuse for willfully ignoring the laws of his country that he swore to uphold. Likewise, the evidence that George Bush and Dick Cheney lied to the American people and to Congress in order to justify and provide legal cover for their Iraq War, is overwhelming. John Conyers, following his detailed investigation, summed up that evidence as follows:

The report finds there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people … The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence that federal criminal laws have been violated… The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct.

The abuses and torture of our prisoners have been frequent and abundantly documented. Regarding those abuses, the U.S. Supreme Court so much as branded George W. Bush a ‘war criminal’ for violating the Geneva Convention, in their Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, as explained by Vyan. In that decision Justice Stevens, speaking for the majority, explained that the petitioner Hamdan was “entitled to the full protection of the Geneva Convention”, and that the “military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the UCMJ and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention”. Justice Kennedy further elaborated on the Geneva Convention that the USSC determined the Bush administration to have violated:

The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law… moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses…

There are plenty other grounds for impeachment as well, including: the frequent illegal punishment of whistle blowers as demonstrated in the Valerie Plame scandal; the severe negligence demonstrated in the response to Hurricane Katrina; the numerous efforts to suppress evidence of global warming; and the signing of over 800 “signing statements” expressing George Bush’s intentions to ignore the laws of our country.


Why Bush and Cheney must be impeached

Elizabeth Holzman, a prime player in holding Richard Nixon accountable for his much lesser crimes, explains why Congress must act to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney from office in a recent article in The Nation, “Impeachment: The Case in Favor”. In a nutshell, the gist of her argument is that failure to do so would set a precedent that condones the wholesale violation of our Constitution, and that failure would also provide the opportunity for the Bush administration to do vast damage to our country in its remaining two years in office, including embroiling us in another war. After summarizing the grounds for impeachment and explaining why it is feasible, Holzman concludes by explaining:

Our country's Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue.

Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations… Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.

There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.


What is more important than impeachment?

Another reason frequently given for not moving to impeach Bush and Cheney is that Congress has more important things to do. But what is more important that preventing another war or holding accountable for the wholesale violation of our Constitution those sworn to preserve and protect it?

But let’s suppose for a moment that the laws that Congress intends to pass in the remaining two years of the Bush/Cheney administration are more important that impeaching Bush ando Cheney. How is Congress going to get those laws past a Bush veto? What would cause George Bush to sign into law legislation that helps the majority of American citizens at the expense of his wealthy cronies? I can’t think of much that would cause him to do that. But with the threat of impeachment hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles, perhaps he would think twice before vetoing legislation that was highly popular with the American people, thereby sending his approval ratings further south and making him even more vulnerable to impeachment than he currently is.


When the majority of Americans want impeachment how do you spin a poll to say otherwise?

It is also frequently claimed by those who are against impeachment that the American people are not ready for it. But that claim is highly questionable. As Holtzman explains in her article:

Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America… Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush’s constitutional misconduct. Public anger at Bush has been mounting. On November 7 voters swept away Republican control of the House and Senate. The President's poll numbers continue to drop.

Holzman also refers in her article to a Newsweek poll taken just before the 2006 November elections, which showed 51% of Americans in favor of impeachment. Gee, that hasn’t received much coverage by our corporate news media, has it? Maybe that has something to do with the way that Newsweek itself spun that poll to make it appear inconsequential. What does one do when one conducts a poll and doesn’t want to publicize the results, and yet feels obligated to publish them? Here’s how Newsweek handled that problem:

… but only 28 percent of all Americans say it (impeachment) should be (a top priority), 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done.

My gosh, how unimpressive. What anemic numbers – 28%, 23%. Compare those numbers to the whopping 44% who don’t want Bush to be impeached, and it’s no wonder that Congress is reluctant to proceed with impeachment. And that’s before the public has had the benefit of watching an impeachment trial.


Give them the rope they need to hang themselves with

Let’s get back to the question of whether enough Republican Senators can be found to convict Bush and Cheney of impeachable offenses if presented with articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives. It has been pointed out that the current crop of Senate Republicans are largely hard core conservatives who don’t give a damn about our Constitution or the Bush/Cheney administration’s repeated violations of it. That is a fair assessment. So why bother even trying?

Aside from the fact that it is the right thing to do, and that failing to even try to impeach Bush and Cheney would condone their numerous criminal violations of our Constitution, there are a couple of other good reasons to proceed with impeachment.

As conservative and conscienceless as most of our Republican Senators are, most of them want to remain in the Senate. When the American public is presented over a period of several weeks or months with the accumulated evidence of high crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney administration, and as their outrage grows and Bush’s poll numbers plummet to new lows, I suspect that a number of Republican Senators will opt for self-preservation at the expense of loyalty to a sinking presidential administration.

But if they don’t, at least we will have one big consolation: Just imagine what our new Senate will look like in 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clinton's impeachment was STRICTLY partisan.
I have never seen any justification for Clinton's impeachment other than the fact that it was a strictly partisan affair. The only thing that I'm afraid about with Bush's impeachment is that the media will attack the senate and congressional democrats with everything they've got, calling it a blatantly partisan affair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
58. They cheapened the process
by making Impeachment seem 'distasteful' and superfluous.

I can think of no President more deserving of Impeachment in the history of the US than Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #58
70. Impeach. Try. Convict. Remove. Imprison.
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 02:43 PM by EOO
I cant think of a fate more deserving for these murderous criminal fuckwads.

Yeah, I agree - they easily lowered the bar for the impeachment process. I think that's why the dems are afraid to impeach right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
82. You're exactly right about all of that
There was no legal or moral justification for Clinton's impeachment whatsoever. And the electorate knew that and they responded in the 1998 elections.

Democrats must be afraid that the corporate media will accuse them of being partisan and will attack them unmercifully if they try to impeach Bush. Maybe they will and maybe they won't do that. But Congress must proceed with impeachment anyhow. Our corporate media has become a blight on our nation. They can't be allowed to control Congress. The public must let Congress know how they feel about this, and the corporate media be damned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. I remember reading a quote from, I think it was John Cornyn who said...
after he got elected, something along the lines of "Impeach the asshole" for no other reason than the fact that he was a democrat. None whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Give it up, guys...
If we can't get enough Republican crossover to get the 60 votes needed for cloture on a non-binding resolution against the troop surge, does anyone really think we'd get enough for 66 votes on conviction? :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. No we won't give up!
We won't give up on our democracy and Bill of Rights!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
35. It seems to me that the philosophy you're espousing here is that
if one fails at something one should then give up trying to accomplish anything else. That doesn't seem like a very productive attitude to me :rolleyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
47. NO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
68. You missed the point.
Republican senators who don't vote to remove the president will have amply demonstrated their dishonesty, assuming that a competent case for impeachment has been presented. Then the voters, who have been informed by the case presented will have the reasons to turn those ass lickers out of office. We get our chance to present the evidence, it is win-win for us even if we lose.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left Hook Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
73. That's realistic, unfortunately.
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 04:27 PM by Left Hook
The impeachment issue is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue. It could also cost us as well. Here is an example.

When Clinton was impeached, the republicans had a +25 majority in the house and I think +7 majority in the senate. By post impeachment, the majority of the house dwindled a good size to a +13 majority and the democrats took the senate with a 50/50 with Gore as tie breaker for a short time until Bush swiped the presidency. This could cost us as well, so be vigilant on that. To every action, there maybe a price to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zara Donating Member (470 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. What do you mean, What if....Isn't it a foregone conclusion 34 wouldn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. No, it's not a foregone conclusion at all
That's what people said when Nixon was investigated for his Watergate related crimes, which were substantially less egregious than the crimes that Bush and Cheney have committed. And before the public was exposed to the accumulating evidence against Nixon, he was far more popular than Bush is now.

Yet, as impeachment hearings progressed and as more and more evidence of impeachable offenses accumulated, U.S. public opinion turned against Nixon, and eventually his own Republican Party turned against him, thus forcing him to resign in August 1974. In the 1974 mid-term elections Democrats gained 48 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate.

See the last section of my OP. Would you argue with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
59. That's simply not a true
account of history.

Much of the evidence against Nixon did not arise during impeachment hearings. They came from the Senate Hearings on Campaign Practices.

Furthermore, people could easily understand the crime of ordering a break-in. Oh, and Nixon was on tape discussing the crime.

And finally, the Senate consisted of 57 Dems at the time, requiring far fewer Reublicans to vote for conviction. And the Senate was not nearly so bitterly-divided along partisan lines back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. I did not say that the only evidence against Nixon came from the impeachment hearings
Yes, much of the evidence came from the Senate Hearings. So what?

So, you're saying that people can easily understand a break-in, but they can't easily understand lying to Congress about reasons for going to war? Or illegally spying on American citizens, against U.S. law and our Constitution? And they can't understand violations of the Geneva Conventions? Or, is it that those crimes are considered less important than a break-in?

Nixon was on tape discussing his crime. Does that negate the fact that the evidence of Bush/Cheney crimes is overwhelming? Is being caught on tape the only kind of evidence allowed in a court of law?

Yes, the Senate was divided then along partisan lines. There were hardly any Republicans at first who came out against Nixon. But when the evidence began to accumulate, especially with the presenting of the tapes, Republicans coming out against Nixon were like an avalanche. Essentially, they were forced to acknowledge the evidence. There would have been at least 34 GOP Senators coming out against him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Give them the rope they need to hang themselves with"
Only works if you have tied one end of the rope to something that will break their necks at the end of the fall.

I see little in the behavior of my Democratic congress to suggest that is the case.
This is an untenable situation for America to be in and continue the status quo.

And since the alternatives are literally unmentionable, I have to consider the possibility
that my party does not want to end the reign of terror.


I wish I could just die in my sleep tonight rather than wake up again in a fascist Amerika.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Don't die. That's what the fascists want.
Take two aspirins (no, don't touch that Prozac) and call me in the morning if you're still depressed. Just don't die!

I've thought of turning on the gas, too. As it happens, my oven is electric. Fate has a plan for us. We have to keep making noise!

Judy Barrett, Citizen
Santa Fe, NM
United States of America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AikidoSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
60. Please stay alive and add to the voices who are speaking out
Yes, we live in a time where fascism has taken a foothold. Most of your neighbors don't have a clue that this is so. People need to be educated and you seem like a good teacher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
83. It's not too late
The American people have been continually changing their minds about the Bush administration as more and more information comes to light. It will be the American people who will have to force their representatives to do the right thing. Our Democratic representatives are put in a terrible bind because the have good reason to believe that our corporate media will castigate them if they do the right thing. The people have to show them that they have enough support that our corporate media is becoming irrelevant.

Never give up hope -- nations have prevailed through terrible difficulties to overcome tyranny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Then we fail. But screw your courage to the sticking-plate, and we'll NOT fail.
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 08:27 PM by WinkyDink
~~~Lady Macbeth.
(Okay, so she croaks herself and he's killed, but that's NOT THE POINT! :) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. Their political lives will depend on it after all the information comes out during the House
hearings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's not patriotic to support a dictator who LIED us into an unnecessary
war! But it is patriotic to demand that he be IMPEACHED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. "Give them the rope they need to hang themselves ..." -- IN_DEED.
Recommended.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandyd921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Makes sense to me
An impeachment trial would rivet the attention of the public in a way that investigations and hearings could not (although they must precede impeachment in the House and trials of Bush and Cheney in the Senate). It would all "come out in the wash" so to speak. The republic senators would be in an untenable position if they stubbornly clung to resisting a vote to convict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
86. That's exactly how I see it.
Our corporate media has kept unpleasant information away from the American people. With impeachment hearings, the CM would be forced to cover it, and it would be highly educational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. America, the Jaded!
Wonderful article, as always, from you.

I am *so* disturbed at my fellow Americans (and it's especially disheartening to see it at DU) who are willing to just let the greatest crimes in the history of our country, committed by unelected leaders with an eye to world domination, pass with a "ho-hum" wave of the hand because there's no guarantee in advance that impeachment will succeed.

We need to create an official record of high crimes and misdemeanors. We need to do it because it is the moral and legal thing to do. We need to do it to show the rest of the world that we have not lost our collective soul. We need to do it for our children, to show them that we tried to defeat the tyranny that is engulfing us.

When I was a teenager, I lived as a military dependent in post-war Germany. I had a German friend whose father was a high-level Nazi in WWII. She lived with a shadow over her life because of that fact. I don't want my daughter and my future grandchildren to assume that I, my generation, and my daughter's contemporaries, were so depraved that we let heinous crimes against humanity pass in review like a circus parade come to town, and soon gone.

And it isn't just the Republicans that we fear won't vote for impeachment we need to concern ourselves with. We need to demand that our recently-elected and reluctant Democrats take up the task of impeachment because it is their duty to do so. And if they shirk that duty, then they need to join with their Republican associates in finding new jobs early in 2009.

In the meantime, many people will lose their lives while our Congress (it's *ours*, remember) plays political games.

My father got off a landing craft at Normandy, and he didn't have any guarantee that he would survive the event. I expect no less of the Congress when it comes to the oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. They have sworn to defend that embattled document, and We the People should hound them mercilessly until they do their sworn duty!

Every day that passes in polite political repartee costs lives. And every moment of delay in demanding justice makes it less and less likely that our beloved Republic is going to survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egalitarian Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Recommend #1 for post #11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. That's a very on-target analogy
Our Congress sends people off to war expecting them to be ready to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their country.

No less should be expected of Congress, whose job is far less dangerous than that of our troops. If they are less interested in serving their country than they are in protecting their own jobs, then they should find another line of work -- as you say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. I have to wonder ...
...when people are being sworn in to Congress if a single one of them really gives thought to the seriousness of the oath. If so, it's not apparent in their actions. And I also wonder if a single one of them takes seriously the "enemies foreign *and domestic*" part of their oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. It's called pressure. Someone needs to put together a comprehensive list/story...
about all the things they've done that are impeachable. It may take a long time because of GITMO and torture and Plame and NSAGate, but eventually it'll get finished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
15. thanx
Impeachment is the only way to address this criminal abuse of power. These people operate under the idea that there are no limitations to their power whatsoever. Impeachment is the only thing that will curb them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. While I'm For Impeachment
and think that the corporate media has been trying to brainwash (and succesfully in some cases) the masses into thinking that impeachment will never work, I also think that it needs to be crafted into easy to understand charges.

Maybe even just 2 or 3 charges should be brought.

Just thinking out loud as I think the attention span of the average American is lower than mine, and mine is pretty fucking short.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. If you're going to bring impeachment charges, charge them with everything
They are guilty of criminal behavior regarding NSA, period.

The invasion of Iraq and it's colonial style occupation violates the UN charter, which W is sworn to uphold.

They are guilty of criminal behavior regarding torture, but you have more to prove here.

There are literally dozens of things they could be charged with. The evidence that would be presented in support of these charges would be devasting to the pugs, because the pattern of lying and subverting the constitution would be in plain view. M$M would not be able to put it on page 7.

Outing Valerie Plame is supposed to be OK, because W declassified her status. That is bullshit and treason. W is supposed to support people in harms way, not endanger them for political gain. The Wilson's civil lawsuit is going to be an eye opening experience for much of America, just as Scooter Libby's trial has been.

I say bring fifty counts, if there are than many charges that can be tried. We only have to convict on one count.

The evidence will be presented on TV every day for weeks. Mr. and Mrs. Average are going to be appalled and start calling their red state senators. At some point, political survival forces the pugs to vote to impeach.

At that point, BushCo is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. It's Confusing To The Average American To Understand All Those Charges
while you and I agree on this

you might be right

I'm still inclined to go for the "slam dunk" (not to overuse the Tenet statement on Iraq WMD) charges that will easily be seen as the deal.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. I have confidence that "Joe Average"...
...will get it when he finds out he cannot afford the comfortable life he's used to because all the money got spent on an illegal and stupid war. I think he'll figure it out when he can't earn that shiny new minimum wage because the jobs are all offshore. I think he'll be pissed when he learns that his e-mails to his girlfriend, and those sexy phone calls, are being listened to and maybe recorded by the Feds. When his best drinking buddy goes to Iraq ahead of him and doesn't come back, I think he'll begin to get it. Even old Joe will probably kinda, sorta get it that they outed an important spy (even though she is a woman and maybe deserved it).

The "Joe's" who live near the Canadian and Mexican borders may begin to get a bit annoyed when they can't go partying any more without a passport. And if they happen to see those pictures of brown-skinned people being tortured so close to home -- Guantanamo isn't that far away -- they might begin to fear that something like that could happen to them if they happen to get shipped "Over There."

Trickle-down awakening, I call it. It's not that I have a lot of confidence in Joe, but even he starts to move out of the way when he sees a truck coming right at him.

I say get *all* the impeachment cards on Nancy Pelosi's precious table!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Yeah Well It Hasn't Happened Yet
and I've been waiting for over 6 years for Joe Average American to figure out all ain't right in Merikuh

So I say focus on what can easily be proven and understood if you want to succeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. I think either way would work, and I see advantages to each approach
The Center for Constitutional Rights has drawn up 4 articles of impeachment, and they have done an excellent job of supporting each one of them in detail. Their book is well worth reading. Here is a summary of their four articles:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1705842

It would be nice, as ItsTheMediaStupid suggests, to hit them with a long list of charges, as they are certainly justified, and I do believe that they would have a cumulative effect on the American people. However, I'm worried about the time aspect. How long would it take to bring 25 different charges before the House and then the Senate? I'm worried about the damage that would be done to our country in the meantime.

I think that the 3 charges I note in the OP should be involved -- and so does almost everyone else, as they are on every list of impeachment charges that I've seen. Any one of them should be enough to convict by themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
71. All that TV time focused on BushCo's crimes is a positive
However, I'm worried about the time aspect. How long would it take to bring 25 different charges before the House and then the Senate?

I think that the longer the Senate is in session and the more evidence of BushCo's crimes that is presented, the sheer volume of criminal activity will penetrate the skulls of all but the densest bushbots and they will call on their senators to convict.

If 67 senators decide that their political survival depends on convicting Cheney and Bush, then you have the votes.

I'm concerned with the damage that will be done while removing BushCo and I'm also concerned with the damage BushCo will do if we don't remove them ASAP, Catch-22.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. yes, but it seems to me that there could be far more damage if they're left alone
Make no mistake about it. That idiot warmonger intends to start another war. He not only doesn't give a damn about our Constitution, he doesn't care if the whole world blows apart. He's probably counting on being raptured or something.

Also, I honestly don't see much damage resulting from removing those guys. I believe it will have a healing effect on our nation, and certainly a very important educational effect as well. Some people won't like it I'm sure, but that will be a minority -- maybe a very small minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #23
42. OTOH, the "average American" ---65% of them---understands enough to kick repukes out last election
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 08:20 AM by wordpix
Now we have to get ALL our reps on board to do the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
17. Impeachment supporters at 58% (up from 51%)
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=">Newsweek Jan 27 poll:

And 58 percent of all those polled say at this point in time, they personally wish that Bush's presidency was over; 37 percent do not feel that way.


The good thing about this attempt to spin the poll (not even using the "I" word), is that it avoids all these rationizations for inaction (like the irrelevant and unfounded concern about the 34 GOP Senators).

This is a real, bottom line result.

And the bottom line is that this poll result itself could be a sufficient, successful article of impeachment.

---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
43. "wish the * pResidency is over" is not the same as "support impeachment"
therein lies the rub
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #43
50. It's better
They think a successful impeachment/removal is long overdue.

A simple "support impeachment" could mean they want only investigation and/or trial.

This is a clarified verdict. They want him gone -- yesterday.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Those who refuse to convict, EMBOLDEN murderers and criminals...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egalitarian Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
19. Spine is respected. Let us not fear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
22. "what if..."????? try: "what happens when...?"
sheesh...:eyes:

some people will just NEVER understand repugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w8liftinglady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
27. I firmly believe that if WE speak out-they HAVE to listen
even in my little shithole-dialog has begun amongst voters...VOTERS who will control the power.Continue to point out the hypocrisy and immorality...with undeniable facts.Educate your uninformed neighbors.America is still able to be saved by a new group of patriots...US...who have not sold their souls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
28. Our refusal to hold these criminals accountable --
impeachment, indictments -- for fear of votes, makes us complicit in the illegal actions. The question that begs asking is: Have we already forsaken our country and rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
31. despite the desire to stop the madness...
this is actually the most compelling reason:

Why Bush and Cheney must be impeached

Elizabeth Holzman, a prime player in holding Richard Nixon accountable for his much lesser crimes, explains why Congress must act to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney from office in a recent article in The Nation, “Impeachment: The Case in Favor”. In a nutshell, the gist of her argument is that failure to do so would set a precedent that condones the wholesale violation of our Constitution...


If this wholesale power grab and disregard of the Constitution is allowed to go unchallenged, we might as well rip the thing up. We'll have abdicated. The case is strong; the prosecution would be brought thoroughly and professionally, and if it ended with 34 holdouts leaving him in power, it would at least set a historical precedent that the wrongs were noted. might even lead to a Constitutional amendment to tweak the process (and kill the ridiculous Senate rules as well!). Such amendment would come way in the future (if there is one), but won't even come up if the existing system is not tried and shown flawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Ed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
33. Well stated. A big kick, a hearty recommendation, and a question:
Can anyone provide links to the sites of organizations that are working to support and further impeachment efforts?

The Center for Constitutional Rights, cited in the OP, is a good start - but there must be others.

I'm convinced that it's long past time to stop debating impeachment and start working to make it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Here's a few:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
34. You're Offering Legal Explanations For A Non-Legal Process
Once again...an impeachment is a political, not criminal process. Evidence be damned, laws be damned as long as you have 34 "friends" or partisans who will put their party above all else...and they will.

The answer isn't political, but criminal. That's why I see a lot more importance in Joe Wilson's suit and others than in relying on a bunch of spineless politicians and a corporate media that thrives on division.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. I agree with you completely. In the end, impeachment is too good
for this bunch. They've gone light years beyond Watergate pranks and lying about sex. Torture, kidnapping - you name it, they're connected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. No, I didn't offer just legal explanations -- I talked about the political issues as well
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 08:05 AM by Time for change
Did you read the last section of my OP, or the part about the Newsweek poll?

Anyhow, you're two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. In your first paragraph, you say "an impeachment is a political, not criminal process. Evidence be damned", and in your second paragraph you say "The answer isn't political, but criminal". What are you trying to say?

Joe Wilson's suit is fine, I'm glad it's happening, and maybe it will be useful. But we can't rely on things like that to make impeachment go forward. Nor do we need to. There is plenty of evidence already available to impeach and convict these criminals a hundred times over. Why do we have to wait for the results of lawsuits?

The so-called "spineless politicians" you refer to are what we have to work with now. We have to let them know that if they won't do this, we'll vote them out of office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. You're Missing The Point
I've read endlessly the numberous posts and polls and wishes for ponies by many here and the argument remains the same. The votes aren't there, the votes won't be there. Even if Chenney and booosh are frog marched out of the White House in shackles, there's not gonna be 34 Repugnicans who will vote to convict...especially when an election campaign looms. I can also cite plenty of polls that show the unpopularity of going through another impeachment...especially one that wastes time and money and, in the end, doesn't end in a conviction and is made into a coporate media circus.

As I've said endlessly on this topic, when I can see 68 votes to convict, then we can add impeachment to the list of "to dos" in cleaning up the criminality of this regime.

What's there not to understand in what I said? Impeachment IS Political...It IS NOT a criminial proceding. It's based on whatever rules the House and Senate impose and not on the same legal standards a criminal prosecution and trial. IMHO, This regime has committed Criminal offenses...wontly starting a war for profit which has led to the needless deaths of thousands of people...none of which an impeachment would come close to addressing. Impeachment also creates a political smoke screen that will complicate and hamper investigations as this regime will stonewall and do all they can to force the courts to get involved anyway.

The place for true justice for this regime is the Internation Court in the Hague. The fist step are pressing lawsuits here and abroad to start real investigations on many levels...both here and abroad...and handled by prosecutors, not politicians. Maybe you'll be satisfied with a feel good political act, I would prefer real justice.

Peace...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #41
49. The impeachment process was written into our Constitution for a very good reason
We need to have a mechanism to address excessive use of executive power and get rid of executives who are ruining our country.

You say that the International Court in the Hague is where Bush and Cheney belong. I agree. But that doesn't mean that we have to sit and wait for that to happen before Congress moves to impeach and convict him. That has a much better chance than the International Criminal Court trying him. That is also a political process, and the only reason it hasn't yet been done is that the international community is intimidated by this regime. Removal from office will change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. Six Of One, Half A Dozen Of Another
I'm patient for the wheels of international justice to move...and they will in a far better fashion than our current political process will.

Please understand, I am not against moving ahead with articles of impeachment...but I go with the belief that "if you shoot the king, you need to kill him"...meaning unless there's a conviction in the Senate, an impeachment is an empty and possibly destructive process in many ways.

Gathering the evidence needs to be done through legal channels...such as civil suits...that can move forward faster and those findings are just as easily transfered to both the Congress and International Courts for further action. Until now, it's only been the independent prosecutions of Libby, Cunningham, Ney and others that have begun to unravel the large corrupt onion...with many layers still remaining until we get to booosh & cheney.

Wilson's suit opens the door to discoveries that will compell Cheney and probably booosh to tesify under oath in a deposition. Also it'll force Rove and many others involved with the sliming of "Wilson's wife" that could easily help Mr. Fitzgerald go onto removing the sand from the umpire's eyes and take direct aim at the Executive. If not Fitz, then there's plenty of fodder for both Conyers and Waxman to procede with.

The impeachment mechanism was intended to keep a President in check...not to be used as a partisan weapon that gets tossed around every four years. Sadly, the definition and process has been cheapened and sensationalized to where it become a media circus centered around the theme of "Democrats attempting to overturn an election" (Democrats said the same during Clinton).

We still have little idea of the extent of the genocide and international crimes that have been committed in Iraq, just as we didn't get the full scope in Germany or the Balkans until after hostilities ceased. This means the withdrawl of our military...something I believe is of far more important work and attention by both the House & Seante.

Cheers...and thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #34
44. disagree: Constitution gives the Senate the power to TRY all impeachments--2/3 majority to convict
Article 1, Section 3 states:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

That means that the Senate conducts the actual trial after the impeachment in the House. It takes a 2/3 majority to convict.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

That means the Senate can only remove Bush from office. Once he is out of office then he would be subject to lawsuits, war crimes tribunals, and other charges, in other courts.

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/basis.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Time And Money Wasted
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 08:44 AM by KharmaTrain
Thanks to Paula Jones, there's no reason a civil suit like Wilson's can go forward with have far more reach and legal punch that an impeachment folly would offer.

Let's start with the investigations...in the Judiciary, the discovery would include Repugnicans who will surely stonewall and tip off those being investigated. Since it's not a legal proceding, perjury and deceptive testimony is highly likely with little legal bite to follow up.

People feel Nixon's impeachment was caused by the House. It wasn't...and even though the articles were passed out, it wasn't until the Supreme Court ruled on the infamous "smoking gun" tape that proved criminality by Nixon, that the Senate appeared likely (APPEARED...there was never a poll of how the vote would have gone)...the Congress didn't even vote out articles as Nixon's CRIMINALITY was so apparent, an impeachment was a formality to the criminal proceedings that would have gone forward had Ford not issued the pardon. We don't have such a clear path this time around. Fitzgerald is nipping at the edges, but there's no direct criminal charges currently facing either booosh or cheney.

Next...a Congressional investigation could easily mess the waters for criminal prosecutions. Grants of immunity, double jeopardy and conflicts between investigations and investigators could easy delay both tracks...as the two branches battle over who has the prime jurisdiction in compelling testimony. Surely many underlings won't tell all without some form of immunity from one or the other...thus allowing them and even more criminals to slip under the radar.

Lastly...here's a man who felt a blowjob rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors", but felt Nixon's crimes were just fine...votes against ALL the articles:

http://www.wnyc.org/blog/lehrer/archives/archive/Lott,%20Trent-thumb.jpg

and Helmet Hair is considered a "moderate" by the corporate media. You'd need to convince him and 34 of his pals...good luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
39. If we had fair & verifiable elections we would never be in this mess. I wonder
how many of those conscienceless republicans preventing justice would be there today if we had clean elections.

Nice piece TFC, but 2009? The world CAN'T wait!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
66. Absolutely -- the world can't wait much longer
especially IF, as seems to be the case, those criminals intend to get us into another war.

And yes, we'd better clean up our elections before we find ourselves under a dictatorship that only a revolution will be able to undo.

My reference to 2009 was only meant to indicate that if we tried for impeachment and it failed, at least there would be some consolation. But it definitely needs to be pursued as soon as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
40. 100 Senators will not have any say in impeachment.
As that is a process conducted in the House. Rather I think you meant that once impeached it will be difficult to get the required votes to convict in the Senate.

But I agree that regardless of the outcome the House should investigate, and if it uncovers evidence of crimes committed, such as for example fraudulently making the case for war, or willful violations of existing treaty obligations, or deliberate and widespread and coordinated election fraud, it is obliged to vote on an impeachment and bring the matter to the Senate. Win or lose, it would be the right thing to do, and must be done if we intend to continue with a consitutional republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. the good news is the House IS investigating---there are lots of committees doing this
They aren't investigating pRes. Smirky per se but are investigating the case for war, war profiteering, going to war unprepared with proper armor and gear, torture, etc.

We don't know where the investigations will lead but hopefully enough will come out to charge the two top felons in the country, Bush-Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #45
53. It is and must be
a logical progression.

You can't have an indictment or conviction before you have an investigation.

As you point out, those investigations are underway now in the house.

It might be helpful to think of the Senate as the jury with the house as the prosecutor. There will always be some on a jury that will tend towards a verdict of "not guilty" (Senate Republics). If the prosecutor doesn't lay out a strong enough case to sway those jury members then he cannot convict. The prosecutor and the investigators have to do a thorough job of laying out their case with facts so that even the most skeptical juror will come to the conclusion of guilt.

In the case of this Senate that means convincing 16 reluctant Senators (icluding Lieberman) with on overwhelming case.

We only have 2 years to get to that point and it is argueable whether it can be done in that amount of time given the obstacles. The process however is going to be conducted in full view of the public (MSM not withstanding) so even if we don't get to the point of conviction or even indictment the ramifications should be devastating to the Republic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Sure there must be investigations
But the statement that "impeachment is off the table" really worries me. That seems to me to imply that there haven't already been extensive investigations that have produced a wealth of evidence, such as that documented in Conyers' "The Constitution in Crisis". Can anyone say that this report doesn't contain a wealth of evidence to proceed with impeachment?

And for those who say that we need more evidence yet, why not just convene impeachment hearings and proceed with the additional investigations as part of the impeachment process? That is what the impeachment process is for.

But I agree with you that it is at least heartening to see that they are proceeding with investigations. I just hope that they don't stick too close to "impeachment is off the table".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. "Off the table"
until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that we cannot ignore it.

I hope I'm not just being pie-in-the-sky hopeful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. I hope not either -- I too have hope regarding this, but
I thing that a more appropriate response than to say that "impeachment is off the table" would have been something like:

'We plan to conduct thorough investigations to follow up on the wealth of evidence of crimes and other serious abuses of executive power by this administration. Should those investigations so indicate, we will follow this up with impeachment hearings.'

It is possible that 'impeachment is off the table' is more politically correct and politically wise than what I have suggested. I don't know. I am ok with the statement as long as Pelosi and the others in fact intend to proceed with impeachment hearing IF the evidence so warrants (and it must be said that anyone with the vaguest familiarity with these cases cannot really believe that it is possible that the evidence will NOT so warrant). But by saying it is 'off the table' they create serious doubt in my mind and in the minds of many others as to whether they are really serious about pursuing this to its logical conclusion at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #40
75. Right
I referred to the question of the Senate convicting Bush and Cheney for impeachable offenses -- after the articles of impeachment are brought forward by the House.

And right, "win or lose it is the right thing to do", and I believe it (the attempt) will have a beneficial effect even if the Senate fails to convict.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
48. Impeach repuke senators
if they refuse to convict.Refusing to convict makes them guilty of conplicity and conspiracy to commit war crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Senators are not subject to impeachment, they can only be expelled with a 2/3 vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
In Truth We Trust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
55. IMPEACH NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaksavage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
61. Impeach them all !!!!
Impeach them now !
Stop this virus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AikidoSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
62. Excellent post.... K & R . --- You know of course that fear is what stands in the way

We need impeachment for many reasons -- it would be a long, long essay and the OP has touched on some of them here. If not done soon -- I worry that America's soul will die from fear and greed.

Fear is not just for the downtrodden masses. There's reason to suspect that it's palpable on the hill as well. It is after all only the Dems who get assassinated, receive anthrax and die in mysterious plane crashes.

To say that the Bushviks are capable of anything to stay in power, is one of those rare instances when an absolutist phrase has the aura of understatement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Yes, I agree with all that -- unfortunately
It's hard to say how much fear their is among Democratic Congresspersons, but I don't doubt that their may be quite a bit.

I agree that they are capable of anything, and that that is an understatement. Here's something I wrote to that effect in 2005:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5495235&mesg_id=5495235
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
65. Where Your Analogy to Criminal Prosecution Breaks Down
A criminal prosecutor cannot "count the votes" in advance, because until a case goes to trial, he/she will not even know who is on the jury. Even once into a trial, it is still impossible to count the votes on the jury; that's why jury consultants make money by trying to "guess" how a jury will go. A prosecutor has to consider the relative strength of the case indeciding whether to go to trial.

In the Senate, however, we know who the "jurors" are in advance. We know, within a pretty reasonable margin of certainty, how they are going to vote. And THAT is where the analogy breaks down. Impeachment/removal is inherently a political process, not a legal process. I said this last week and was essentially ignored.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. The analogy doesn't break down
You pointed out a difference between impeachment/conviction and an ordinary criminal process. But the analogy still holds. Even if the votes could be counted in advance in a regular jury trial, it wouldn't matter. The decision to move forward with the case should be based upon the evidence of impeachable offenses, not on whether or not the votes are there in advance.

Yes, impeachment is a political process. So does that mean that evidence of heinous crimes count for nothing? Does that mean that evidence of our chief executive putting himself above the law by ignoring our Constitution -- the document on which our nation depends for its functioning -- is irrelevant to the process?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Prosecutors do it all the time
They examine a case, weigh the relative strength of the evidence and consider how that evidence will look to a jury. Most prosecutors don't like to lose, and if a case is somewhat weak, most times they'll decline to prosecute.

As for the political process of impeachment, evidence of a heinous crime might be enough to swing some Senators to a "removal" vote, but only through the political process of their constituents applying pressure on the individual Senator. Sadly, I think the days are gone (if they ever existed) when our representatives actually voted their consciences. I think even in the case of Nixon, the Repukes who took the message to the White House did so out of political self-interest: they were afraid Nixon would take down the entire party, including themselves.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. They don't have to vote their consciences
The evidence will be presented to the American people as well. If the evidence is persuasive -- and it most certainly is -- Senators will be forced through public opinion to vote to convict. As you say, that's what happened with Nixon.

The point is that the votes can't be reliably counted at this time -- nor should they be. In my mind, the evidence is plenty persuasive enough to convince a critical mass of the American people.

Since we can't count the votes ahead of time, the decision needs to be based on the evidence. That's my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
67. Conviction of impeachment in the Senate is impossible until after another round of Senate elections.
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 02:04 PM by w4rma
And that will happen in 2008 when there is also a new election for President.

The Rethugs in the Senate are much to partisan to convict the moonbat.

I don't think it would be very hard to impeach him in the House if the Representatives felt that they had a fighting chance of conviction in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #67
77. If the American people become outraged after exposure to weeks or months
of impeachment hearings, what do you think is more important to our partisan Republican Senators -- their own survival in office or loyalty to a sinking pResident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Loyalty to the Republican Party and the wealthy corporatists who will reward them golden parachutes
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 04:51 PM by w4rma
when they are voted out of office, finally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
69. The first three paragraphs should be more than enough argument, for those who ...
are already acquainted with the offenses. Those are three tight, succinct, paragraphs. :thumbsup:

(Nothing wrong with the rest of it either! K&R)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
72. IMPEACH NOW !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
78. That would be 33 repuke senators and 1 Joe Lieberman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
85. a few b/j's as opposed to war crimes..a bit of a difference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC