"I would begin....with the demonstrably impeachable offenses..."

[laststeamtrain]

To Impeach or Not to Impeach? A Discussion with House Judiciary Chair John Conyers and CIA Veteran Ray McGovern

Three Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee—Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin—have called on committee chair John Conyers to begin impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney. We host a discussion on impeachment with Conyers and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/20/to_impeach_or_not_to_impeach
<snip>

RAY McGOVERN: Well, we not only have the obstruction of justice, but we have the President’s former spokesman saying that he was involved in the outing of Valerie Plame. We also have the President threatening World War III on bogus evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons development program. So, you know, it’s sort of like outreach fatigue. Where do you begin?

Well, where I would begin is with the demonstrably impeachable offenses—first and foremost, the President’s not only admission, but his bragging about violating laws against eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant. He bragged that he did that thirty times. That was one of the articles of impeachment voted against President Nixon. Similarly, disregarding subpoenas, that, too, was one of the articles voted against President Nixon in the Judiciary Committee, where Congressman Conyers, of course, served very loyally. So you have those two right there.

And that’s not even mentioning, you know, forging, manufacturing, coming up with false intelligence to deceive congressmen and senators out of their constitutional prerogative to declare or to otherwise authorize war. I mean, it doesn’t get any worse than that. And so, my sense is that our founders are probably turning over in their grave at this point, because they put the impeachment clause in the declarative mood, not the subjunctive mood. They didn’t say that—

<more>

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/20/to_impeach_or_not_to_impeach

[PuraVidaDreamin]

1. BOO! The democratic party is afraid of MSM!

Lame, shameless, and complicit

[Perry Logan]

4. Isn't it rational to fear them? If you were in Congress' shoes, you'd damn well fear them too.

[EVDebs]

2. Nixon's impeachable offences included abusing a federal agency, the CIA

Articles of Impeachment for Richard M. Nixon
http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

Besides the obvious 'making false and misleading statements' the lying in order to go to war in Iraq, using Office of Special Plans as an end-run around the legitimate CIA intelligence sources, accounts for an abuse of the CIA.

Besides, what's so funny ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TnqUlB4Gg

[Senator]

3. Only Impeachment Can Unify Our Once-Great Nation

Can we really live with not even trying?

Failure to impeach is complicity — approval — exoneration for the regime.

–

[Perry Logan]

5. Come on, now. Impeachment would be very divisive.

[Senator]

7. "Come on, now." ?? That's the argument for fearing "divisiveness" ?

You provide a clear example of the emptiness of this bogey-man. What exactly does "divisive" mean? What will actually happen?

Louder neofascist screaming? Something beyond the existing claim of monarchical power? There's really no there there.

Impeachment would "unite" all but the irrational diehards around American values of human rights, justice, and truth.

Come on, now. We can all recall that those are not simply cliches, right?

===

[mwb970]

6. I don't see how we can ever be "unified" with right-wingers.

They seem so completely wrong on every issue and so completely unwilling to listen to a dissenting point of view. You can't get any traction. You won't get any compromise.

You might as well try to "unify" humans and wolves.

[Senator]

9. I don't see why we can't ...

... make inroads with a great many of them. But keep in mind that "unity" can be achieved despite a few grumbling outcasts. These diehards you/we seem to worry so much about are roughly 20% at most and should not be a obstacle to uniting the rest of the nation. It is not "compromise" that should be pursued.

But even among the 20-percenter "wolves," there is a simplicity of outlook and a lemming-like quality that might easily be swayed by the simple reality of impeachment for war crimes and illegal activity. They understand power (violence really) and they identify with those who exercise it, not with those who retreat from it.

My guess is that if the DC Dems would break out of their DC cocktail party mindset, and stand up to bushcheneyism (win or lose), there would be a 5-7% shift in the white male demographic that would be semi-permanent.

===

[Smith_3]

8. Election fraud, treason, illegal warfare, obstruction of justice, collaboration with rogue states ..

...authorizing leaks of classified information, reckless wasting of public funds, conspiring to undermine the constitution ...

and that's only the ones I can immidiately think of...