All that's needed for impeachment is a SIMPLE MAJORITY in the House.

[nashville_brook]

Just a friendly reminder.

[Muttocracy]

1. right, for the first step, but isn't it 67 to convict in the Senate? nt

[MonkeyFunk]

2. they ignore that part

they think that a bunch of Republicans who wouldn't vote against Bush on ANYTHING will suddenly decide to remove him. It's delusional.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Impeachment is more important than removal at this point.

He's gone in January either way, so removal is not so critical.

But impeachment would send a signal that we don't condone this kind of behavior. Think of the children! :)

[BR_Parkway]

28. Public hearings of the crimes need to happen, the rest would very quickly

follow if the General public knew what we here know

[Aristus]

3. We don't need to convict him, just indict (impeach) him.

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, but now, for all of history, he'll be a President who was impeached. There will be the appearance of wrong-doing, as opposed to the reality of it. Not to mention all of the Americans who seem to think Impeachment and conviction are the same thing.

I'd love to convict the smirking chimp, but I'll settle for impeaching him now, and arresting him privately and trying him for war crimes after President Obama is inaugurated.

[elizfeelinggreat]

4. AMEN

Exactly.

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. The DLCers ignore that part. (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

7. a failed impeachment doesn't help us

it acquits Bush.

The republicas were hurt by their failed attempt on Clinton.

If we impeach and fail, it's guaranteed that almost every president from here on out will be impeached.

[Duer 157099]

12. Maybe one day they'll stop breaking laws then

I mean, really. If they all expect impeachment can happen at the drop of a hat, then maybe, just maybe, they'll start trying to do their jobs with honesty and integrity.

Failure to impeach now guarantees that every (not almost) president from here on out will act with compltete impunity and do whatsoever the hell they want without fear of reprisal. That's the flip side, isn't it?

[Telly Savalas]

31. If they expect impeachment at the drop of a hat

but that impeachment is never accompanied by an actual conviction in the Senate, then they won't give a shit whether or not they get impeached. It will simply become part of the moronic little political games the parties play.

Impeaching with an acquittal has just as much of a deterrent to future presidents as the absence of an impeachment.

If the American people habitually elect presidents who are deterred from committing felonies only by the possibility of being impeached, then our democracy is broken anyway.

[mudesi]

14. That is the most ridiculous talking point in the world

And it's not true that the Republicans were hurt by their failed attempt on Clinton. How do you think Bush even won in 2000?

This president has committed crimes and needed to be impeached years ago.

But too many Democrats are spineless.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. "The republicas were hurt by their failed attempt on Clinton." BULLSHIT!

Remind me again... *who* won after the impeachment of Clinton?

Oh, that's right... it was republicans.

But you ignore that, don't you?

Quit spreading false information.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. **crickets**

chirp chirp

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Check the polls

and Republicans lost seats in the 1998 election - the one that took place during all the talk of impeachment.

It's practically unheard of for the opposition party to lose seats in the 6th year of a president's term. But they did.

They also lost two speakers of the house over it.

It's not false information - it's the truth.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Check the FACTS.. there was *still* a republican majority... period..

[Telly Savalas]

32. Didn't Gore win in 2000?

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. Is, or was, he ever in the White House as President?

BTW, we're talking about Congress... the House & Senate... please try to keep up and follow along...

[onenote]

38. The repubs suffered historic losses in the House in 1998

and the lost more ground in Congress in 2000 and also lost the popular vote for the Presidency.

Specifically, in 1998,the repubs lost five seats. It was the first time since 1934 that the non-presidential party failed to gain congressional seats in a mid-term election. It was also the first time since 1822 that the non-presidential party had failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a President's second term. The poor showing in 1998 is one of the reasons Newt Gingrich was effectively driven out as Speaker.


What part of that information is false?


edited to correct year in subject

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. What were the consequences of that "historic loss"? Hint: Nothing...

republicans still controlled congress, didn't they?

Most of the republican losses were attributed to the attempt to impeach a very POPULAR President. George W Bush doesn't have that popularity, does he? Many felt that the attack against Clinton was personal; ie, he lied about a personal matter that was no ones business but his own. George W Bush is smothered by facts and proof that he lied this nation into an illegal war, he's illegally wiretapped US citizens, and has wiped his ass with our Constitution.

The backlash of NOT impeaching a criminal will be far worse than the backlash of attempting to impeach Clinton over a personal matter.

[PeaceNikki]

24. Yes, "it acquits Bush"

Why is that so hard to see?

[Aristus]

25. The impeachment of Clinton handed the repukes the White House.

Acquitted or not, Clinton's actions made a lot of fence-sitters unhappy; fence-sitters who were more than happy to go to the polls and vote against Gore since they couldn't vote against Clinton anymore. The impeachment put the repugs into power. And now we're all suffering as a result. But still, they got the power they were looking for when they decided back in '94 or '95 that they were going to impeach him; for anything or (as it turned out) for nothing.

If an impeachment proceeding against Bush can guarantee that the repugnicans lose the next four election cycles, then I say: "Proceed".

[hokies4ever]

29. "every president from here on out will be impeached"

:wtf:

:rofl:

[druidity33]

34. i don't think so...

"The republicas were hurt by their failed attempt on Clinton"

You'd have to back that statement up for me to believe it in any way...

:shrug:

[lovuian]

30. Awesome Point Aristus

Awesome Point
so we don't need the Senate to Impeach

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Once the trial is on in the Senate, the MSM cannot ignore it and will have to report it.

All of the high crimes and misdemeanors will be exposed to all.

[crickets]

41. That is one of the most important by-products of impeachment

Corporate media will have no choice but to air public hearings. Finally, all American citizens would be shown the extent of the lies and the crimes. If the truth got out, people would demand conviction from the Senate, followed by criminal trials as well as trials for war crimes. "The Senate will never convict" is a specious argument.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. Exactly. BTW...Did you notice that the person I was responding to never replied?

Same with a similar post I had on a different Impeachment thread.

I was in my early 20s during Watergate, and those hearings which were shown on tv and aired on the radio took down Nixon in 3 months.

[crickets]

43. Yes, I noticed :)

I was just shy of my teens when Watergate happened. I wish I'd been a little older and had paid more attention, but still it was almost impossible not to know what was going on. It was wall to wall on TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, and everyone's lips. My mother dragged a TV out on the patio and she and her friends sat under an umbrella with a pitcher of iced tea, glued to the coverage day after day. I'll never forget one afternoon at Y camp when a counselor walked through the dining hall with the newspaper held over his head like a trophy, headline: NIXON RESIGNS. Everybody heaved a sigh of relief when Nixon was finally gone. After all that, even my Republican parents thought the pardon was a BS mistake. We're still paying for it today with the talking point driven attitude that holding the highest offices in our country to account is somehow a partisan "political suicide" that will waste our time or tear us apart. That's nonsense.

Oops, I kinda blathered on there... :hi:

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Yes, that is correct

It forces Republican Senators to go on record: either the vote to convict or explain why they support a war criminal.

[leftofthedial]

5. should be a no-brainer

and a moral imperative


but brains and morals are off the table in DC

[EFerrari]

8. I don't think so. Pelosi won't have it . n/t

[KoKo]

9. Kucinich with Wexler's help is "moving slowly" trying to "nudge Conyers and Pelosi.

Kooch's statements are now on the Congressional Record....along with the Cheney Impeachment Articles.

Let's figure our Dems have been threatened and their spouses and children and all their family "tartgeted" ...(just think how many times Bush has shut down Congress for Fire alarms and fake "bombs" in the Rest Rooms) and you will realize that they "know" what they are up against.

I could make a case that our Dems "DO HEAR US" but they know, in their wisdom, that they must take "baby step after baby step."

Hey...I could be wrong...I am one of those "Conspiracy Theorists" who do believe the "Powers that Be...Control it ALL" ...but let's give some credence to the "baby step theory" because I see some evidence that our Dem's "spine" while "very weak" is weak because of threats and we know what the Bushies do...

So, I'll give our Dems one last "BREAK" given that we "out here" don't have the "FULL PICTURE" but we do have a lot of it...maybe the last "piece of puzzle" is how our Dems have been "intimidated" is the one that's the TRUTH OF IT...

I don't know this for sure....but evidence is that Bushies will send "every force they have against you, your family, friends and relatives" to MAKE SURE they aren't Prosecuted for WAR CRIMES!

They have much more at stake..but then there REALLY ARE DINO DEMS who are their Accomplices..and they are Protecting THEM, also.

[KoKo]

10. Yet..our Dems still Cower? There's more to this than we know.....eom.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. My guess...

some are being paid off, some are complict, some are being blackmailed.

[nashville_brook]

18. that's becoming more apparent every day. sooner or later someone is going to spill the beans.

[KoKo]

22. We have to hope that eventually the "beans are spilled." I never thought Scotty would "spill beans"

and look at what we have with him.. Eventually our Dems will do it...if they can get over their "every two-year Election Cycle" where they "keep powder dry" until they have "MAJORITY" while the "Minority" still manages to run circles around them.

I don't know, anymore...it's hard to find the truth of anything with our Dems even though we know the WORST of the BUSHIES that folks are just now revealing. Who knows...:-(

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. And that is probably the biggest reason why there will be no impeachment hearings

The majority of the House does not want this.

[Gman]

26. Unfortunately it's not that simple

[Occam Bandage]

27. All that's needed to avoid him being acquitted of all charges is 67 Senators.

[nashville_brook]

35. doesn't matter.

[lonestarnot]

36. And dats all folks!

:evilgrin:

[onenote]

37. and there aren't the votes to get a simple majority in the house

Not when you take into consideration that there are more than enough Blue Dog Democrats and other Democratic members of the House who are from moderate to conservative leaning districts who are facing reelection in a few months and are more interested in proving to voters that the Democratic party has solutions for the energy crisis, health care, the war, etc. than getting embroiled in an impeachment debate that focuses on issues that, like it or not, the public doesn't care about nearly as much and for which there really isn't the time to address, given the impending campaign (Congress is only scheduled to adjourn in late September and between now and then there are recesses for July Fourth and the entire month of August. And because of the need to be home to start campaiging, those recesses aren't going to be cancelled and the session isn't going to be extended.

[librechik]

40. I don't see why everybody is so afraid of this. So what if we lose in the Senate?

It's the hearings we want. Let the chips fall where they may.