To Impeach or Not To Impeach?

[Popol Vuh]

There should be NO question on this matter. The constitution is clear. But more shockingly than hearing members of congress, such as Pelosi, is my reading from some posters that we shouldn't impeach because it may harm Obama's chances at election.

The constitution is NOT an instrument of partisan politics and anyone who thinks so should be ashamed of themselves. The law is the law and if we continue to justify our spineless acquiescence to apply the law, then we deserve all future violations of the law by our government - period.

Pelosi, Conyers and all others in the same camp with respect to impeachment should take a lesson from the past:

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder.

Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

Audio of full speech

Link to page with video option

[AndyTiedye]

1. 2 Out of 3 Bald Eagles Say, IMPEACH!

[lame54]

10. I bet the 3rd is Steven Cobeagle

[TahitiNut]

2. Impeach. Remove. Indict. Convict. Imprison. (Rinse. Repeat.)

We're a nation of nothing but cowards and criminals unless and until the Cheney/Bush cabal of war criminals are punished.

[flvegan]

3. The House should just shut down until the election, lest

anyone there do/say/write/think anything that might do something that someone, somewhere thinks might not overwhelmingly help Obama.

Wait...because this topic needs it :sarcasm:

Now, I'll get called a McCain shill again for my take on this.

At least if we let impeachment slip away, we can bitch about it endlessly for years and years.

[chknltl]

4. Do I believe in the Constitution and our Democracy? YES! So impeach already!

:patriot:

[1]

5. not...

politically not a smart move.

remember that the people you have placed in power are politicians. and its a representative democracy, not an explicit one.


as mel brooks so exquisitely stated "gentlemen, we've gotta protect our phony-baloney jobs!" so their task is clear.

does that help?




i'd put a sarcasm smiley in this post but i think that would be wrong...

[Mnemosyne]

6. Hear, hear, Popol Vuh, hear, hear! KnR! n/t

[Popol Vuh]

11. Thank you vickiss

And others for your responses.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Now Convince 33 Repugnican Senators

If the votes were there, there'd be an impeachment. They're not and many see any Impeachment without a conviction as a vindication of this regime's wrong doing.

[Senator]

8. Already Done

A article of impeachment for torture would up them in same spot as when they opposed the WH and voted to uphold the Geneva Conventions. McCain himself is the only one flip-flopping to get elected.

And "many more" see failure to impeach as a far bigger vindiction of this regime's wrong doing (because it is).

And they also see it as an abdication by the DC-Dems (becaue it is).

And abdicating one's responsibilities is no way to win elections (so we lose).

===

[Popol Vuh]

13. Vindication?

No, more like it would put on the record those who voted no on impeachment that they side with all this regime's unlawful wrong doings. There's plenty of evidence against this administration, so let those who'll vote no go on the record as such.

Secondly, what is the media going to do, ignore the impeachment proceedings? There's no way that they could without making themselves so blatantly obvious that even the average blind person will see them for what they are. So now you'll get all this dirty laundry out in a perspective that even the politically ignorant can see.

Last but not least and as already stated. The constitution is clear on this matter and impeachment is not some instrument of political strategy - it is the law. It is the law no less than bringing to justice a child rapist. You wouldn't let a child rapist off the hook for political strategy purposes would you? No of course you wouldn't. So what's the difference here, the law is the law? As already stated, the constitution is NOT an instrument of partisan politics and anyone who thinks so should be ashamed of themselves. The law is the law and if we continue to justify our spineless acquiescence to apply the law, then we deserve all future violations of the law by our government - period.

[lame54]

9. That is the rhetorical question

[G_j]

12. every word, true

"The constitution is NOT an instrument of partisan politics"

Those that would see it so, have shredded the Constitution right along with the Bush cabal.

[Popol Vuh]

14. Thanks G_j

:hi:

Peace

[G_j]

15. not all willingly seek to destroy the Constitution

it's just that, to some, alas many, EVERYTHING is subject to political expediency.
War, torture.. you name it, all can be sidestepped, because of course the ends are seen as justifying the means, getting "elected"...


:shrug:

[Riddler]

16. Don't know if this is accurate or not, but I read somewhere here on DU that if impeachment

proceedings were being held against a sitting president, his power to issue pardons was suspended. Does anybody know if this is true or not? And if it is, that should be reason enough to at least go forward so Jr. won't be able to give his criminal cadre a get out of jail free card.

[wolverinez]

17. That works for me

Perfect timing.

[Pastiche423]

18. I hope this is correct...

The President is denied a pardon when impeachment proceedings start, not after the investigation ends. There is no requirement to have a perpetual list of charges and endless investigations. To deny a pardon, the President needs only be charged with a single crime, and that charge presented to the House for a vote.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/president-must-be-impeached-to.php