If they don't impeach, is Pelosi, Rahm, Hoyer, Conyers complicit & accessories to the crime?

[ray of light]

We have a mountain of coverups and illegal abuse of powers, yet not one impeachment hearing other than what Dennis Kucinich put forward. Why aren't the candidates calling for impeachment unless they too are willing to let treason slide? Should we sit it out until 08, as they want us to do, or should they tune out the political spin-meisters and start impeachment here and now?

[ray of light]

1. This is what I think...

I believe it's their moral obligation to impeach. I believe they are now accessories to the crimes and can no longer keep the blood from their hands.

[acmavm]

2. Of course they are. Their lack of action furthers a criminal conspiracy.

Their lack of action is a cover-up for some of the most treasonous crimes ever committed by a political administration in the history of this country.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Yes

[Toots]

4. Boy did your hammer hit that nail squarely on the head...

YES.......

[stillcool]

5. What would happen to..

a district attorney who had evidence of a crime, and failed to bring charges? "Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught"

[onenote]

31. probably not much

Under US law, the decision whether or not to prosecute and what charge to file generally rests entirely in the prosecutor's discretion so long as a prosecutor's decision is not based on impermissible factors such as race, sex, religion, etc.

"Few subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings, or what precise charge shall be made, or whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought." United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1981).

[TheFarseer]

6. no n/t

[Cleita]

7. Good question but

I would like to hear what a Constitutional lawyer has to say about exactly what their culpability is.

[onenote]

30. constitutionally they're not guilty of anything

easy question easy answer.

Under the constitution, whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry and/or vote to impeach a federal officer is a matter left to the sole discretion of the House of Representatives. As others have pointed out, the House can impeach when there is no good reason to do so (Clinton) and refuse to impeach when there is good reason to do so (chimpy/cheney). Under the Constitution the only recourse anyone has if they don't like what Congress does or doesn't do in the impeachment arena (including the action of the Senate to convict or not convict) is to wait until the next election and vote against the members who did/didn't do what individual voters think that they should have done/not done.

And since someone will probably bring up the "they are violating their oaths of office" claim, the answer is no they're not, just as members of the House didn't violate their oath of office when they didn't impeach Harry Truman for unconstitutionally ordering the seizure of the steel mills or when they didn't impeach FDR for ordering American citizens to relocation centers on the basis of their Japanese heritage (and yes I know that the supreme court held that FDR's order was constitutional, but if you accept that Congress shouldn't impeach until after the SCOTUS decides whether particular acts were unconstitutional, you probably can't argue for impeacahing chimpy yet either).

The idea that one's oath of office compels a particular course of behavior in the impeachment arena is not only at odds with the Constitution's express conferral of discretion to Congress in matters relating to impeachment, but it makes no logical sense unless you are willing to say that all the Democrats that voted against impeaching Clinton violated their oath of office or all the repubs that voted for it violate their oath (and the same for the vote in the Senate). But who decides?

[Uben]

8. No

You can holler impeach all day long, but if the votes aren't there, it isn't going to happen.

After the shit that this adminisration has dealt the dems, they would impeach the bastard in a second if they had the votes. The simple reality is, they don't have them.

So, why waste the time, and risk the political fall-out for something you know is a failed venture from the outset?

I would like to see Bush imprisoned as much as any of you, but I do understand how things work in congress.

Any candidate who says they will impeach Bush is lying through their teeth to get votes. They know damned good and well it aint gonna happen. So, you need to focus your energy on the next best thing, electing a candidate who can bring together a coalition of votes in congress to enact change.

[Prefer]

Great - then then lets single out the votes we don't have

I want to know who is an active traitor. Who is working against justice. If we don't have someone's vote they need to be singled out and actively pursued in the media, on the blogs. Pull stunts until they relent. It will be hard for them to justify not impeaching at this point.

[Uben]

11. we're talking republicans

...what kind of pressure are you going to use on them?

[Webster Green]

13. You didn't even come close to addressing the original question..

Everybody is already aware of their chicken-shit political strategy.

Now they have to keep their fucking powder dry till they actually have a dem prez in office?

Gimme a break. What about our constitution?

[Uben]

18. Yes I did

I said no.

You will HAVE TO HAVE republican votes to get it done. The dems do not have enough of a majority to make it stick. Unless you have a magic potion that will make them vote to impeach, it aint gonna happen. I don't see what is so damned hard about that to understand? It does absolutely no good to denigrate our congressmen because the people did not elect enough of a majority to bring about impeachment! Their hands are tied.

[Webster Green]

22. The question asked if they are complicit, not if they have the votes.

If they don't initiate impeachment proceedings, they are violating their oaths of office, as well as taking part in the cover-up of very grave and very illegal offenses (treason for example). Any estimates of what the vote tally in favor of impeachment would be are irrelevant.

[Toots]

15. So you are stating flat out Democrats would vote against Impeachment.

Democrats have the Majority and it only takes a Majority vote to Impeach. If every single Republican votes against Impeachment it would not matter if the Democrats all voted for it.. After Bush* becomes Impeached it becomes a matter of removing him from office. In that regard you may have a point. There may not be enough votes because the Framers of the Constitution wanted to make it tough to do..There have been two Presidents previously Impeached and yet none have been removed. That did not stop the Republicans from accomplishing their goal of Impeachment in both instances and History will always proclaim that by majority of the Representatives of all the people in the USA they found that person to be unacceptable..It needs to be done whether Bush* gets removed or not. The point needs to be made that his behavior is unacceptable to the Majority of the people of the USA...

[HughMoran]

16. People forget that impeachment is a political effort

It is not a court where you are judged based on actual facts. It is simple political calculus that goes into people's decisions. Unless and until the party of the impeached turns on him (a la Nixon), there is no possible way to achieve the required conviction to remove the offender from office. A cornered animal is dangerous but contained. An injured but free animal is much more dangerous.

[EFerrari]

19. That's exactly backwards. You can't enact change by doing

more of the same.

There was no political fallout for the Thuggery in the last impeachment attempt. They just looked strong to their base.

They don't know how many votes there are. This argument is like saying, let's not try this murderer because we don't know if the jury would convict.

[Uben]

20. They know exactly how many votes there are

The very most you could get is a wrist-slapping, and this administration doesn't give a shit what you think about them as long as they can do what they want. Without conviction, it is useless. He would laugh in your face, just as Clinton did when they failed to convict him.

[EFerrari]

21. You would also get months of recounting Bush's crimes

in an election year.

And, who on Earth cares if he laughs? He's no Clinton. He's an idiot and everyone knows it.

If the thing fails, it's not useless. It is a vestigial gesturing at something we once enjoyed here called Democracy. And, it would not fail. The Republicans don't want to be defending this moron in an election year. The rats would sprint away from him.

[ray of light]

27. Should the Hague step in if Congress doesn't?

Also, can the Hague indict a sitting president? Isn't this about war crimes such as Germany committed?

[EFerrari]

28. I don't believe the Hague would because the US is too powerful. n/t

[BobRossi]

9. Yup!

Enablers are as guilty as abusers.

[143tbone]

10. letter sent to congressman by a friend of mine

Dear Congressman xxxxxx,



Standing outside the Capitol some 32 years ago with your hand on the sacred Bible, you took this oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Every two years since, you have been re-elected and again taken this vow again.

Since the U. S. Constitution says only Congress can declare war ((Article 1, Section 8 - The Congress shall have the power to declare war), and you and many others apparently voted for this war in Iraq because of receiving information from the Executive branch of our government that was apparently untrue, most constituents I know will be most upset if you do not represent us by only voting for funds to bring the troops home from this illegal war.


Could any other funds voted for by you NOT be considered unconstitutional and illegal?

If you allow this war to continue, will you not be liable to us as a civil officer for dereliction of duty?


P. S. Please see the clause below re: impeachment from the U. S. Constitution.

United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[Lost4words]

12. yes n/t

[Richardo]

14. No. Next question

My preference will be for criminal prosecution after they leave office and are no longer (or less) covered by executive privilege.

Impeachment is a waste of time, effort and money and could cost the Democrats the election.

[AndyTiedye]

17. Under Duress

[rucky]

23. Not if their plan is to indict in 2009

Which, I would say is a more viable and preferred option. Less risky - conviction-wise. Less chance of massive retaliation, without the powers of the Executive to protect them. And failed (or successful) impeachment proceedings could actually ruin a future criminal case.

We have no indication that it is their plan, as they couldn't really indicate it without immediate retaliation. I have faith they're playing poker, and honestly, it is the most direct and logical reason for their strange behavior.

If they don't indict in '09, then fuck every one of them. America is dead to me.

[LWolf]

24. YES. n/t

[springhill]

25. They are complicit if they don't try to impeach.

[ladjf]

26. In my opinion, yes. This would be similar to a mental health

professional learning that a patient intended to kill someone but failed to notify the authorities.
There are certain professions that carry the burden of accountability and being a Congress person is one of them.

[Initech]

29. If I may play defensive here...

As long as there are even a few GOP senators, impeachment aint gonna happen no matter who's in charge.

[mdmc]

32. we all are

just like the GOOD GERMANS