impeachment does NOT require "proof" of high crimes and misdemeanors

[unblock]

it is up to the house an senate to decide if the circumstances and evidence warrant impeachment and removal.

we don't NEED a videotape of shrub and cheney erasing emails or whatever.

if the stench coming from the white house is enough, if the country cannot stand any more of this BU**SH**, then congress has the power and duty to replace offensive officeholders with better people.

bill clinton was impeached for evading an irrelevant, lurid truth in a meritless civil case, for pete's sake! how much ridiculousness do you need to get a republican impeached these days?

[ShortnFiery]

1. If our Democratic Leadership in congress does not IMPEACH in the near future,

we can conclude that THEY are part of the problem. If so, it will take MANY ELECTION CYCLES to wash out all these gutless wonders in favor of Democratic Representatives who take their oath to The Constitution seriously.

IMO, if our Congress does NOT Impeach this Corrupt Unitary Executive, they are also TRAITORS to my beloved Country. :grr:

[bobbolink]

38. the basic, at-the-roots step is getting corporations out of government!!!

From elections to lobbyists to contributors, and on down the line.

Corporations must be shown the door, in no uncertain terms.

Until then, very few politicians will be uncorruptable!

[baldguy]

2. All you need is a GOP Congress with a Democratic President.

[mmonk]

9. Good one. Except for the 70's.

They weren't afraid of proceeding forward nor took it off the table.

[H2O Man]

3. Sure does.

Impeachment is a process that absolutely requires "proof." That "proof" can be in the form of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.

[mmonk]

8. Suspicion comes with circumstantial evidence which

there is plenty of. Inquiry determines proof and thus drawing up the articles. I would say we have even hard proof at this point.

[H2O Man]

12. Circumstantial evidence

is recognized as being as valid as direct evidence in legal proceedings. Circumstantial evidence is "hard proof."

[mmonk]

14. That is true in a court of law.

I'm curious as to the impeachment inquiry part. Does that require proof? Or does it require suspicion that a crime against the constitution may have been committed? I was wondering for purposes of discussion.

[H2O Man]

16. Impeachment

is a legal process. It is a civil, rather than criminal trial. Circumstantial evidence is recognized as being of value in any trial. I think that it would be beneficial for a better idea of what circumstantial evidence is, and why it is of great value, to read what Vince Bugliosi has said about it in a few of his books. "Circumstantial evidence" is "proof." Absolutely, without doubt, 100%, in both civil and criminal proceedings it is.

[mmonk]

18. Yes indeed, the great majority of convictions were done so

through circumstantial evidence (my brother-in-law was a federal prosecutor). I was just asking about what you thought was needed in order to request an impeachment inquiry. I'm unclear as far as that goes and respect your opinion.

[unblock]

33. except that the constitution places impeachment and trial in political bodies

they use legal terms like high crimes and misdemeanors and trial and so on, but then they place the power in explicitly political bodies. so at some level, you cannot escape ford's truism that it's all about whatever congress thinks it's about.

in this case, if congress decides "proof" is not required, then it is not required.

[mmonk]

4. True. Suspicion is enough for an inquiry.

I don't know what the problem is with the inaction. Does the administration have some things on prominent dems with all the warrantless spying? I will always wonder about that if there is no attempt at remedy.

[wavesofeuphoria]

5. I don't think impeachment is wise right now ..

I believe Pelosi has impeachment "off the table" .. so that what is on the table is the war and ending it. Congress is not being idle about the administration's corruption and illegal activities .. investigations -- a critical step in the impeachment process -- are being conducted in a wide range of areas. Further, I would like to see ALL the administration's corrupt activities exposed and discovered ... not just those that will "stick" to Bush or Cheney.

These two goals -- ending the war and impeachment -- are not too things that can be multitasked. Everyone's attention will be diverted from the war and ending it ... and that is just not what we need right now.

A car chase isn't necessary here .. we've got his license plate number, we know where he lives. Let's end the war and get the troops home first.

[mmonk]

6. If not now, then it is never wise.

[EFerrari]

24. It's not up to Pelosi to tell us what is important to us, rather the reverse.

Bush should be impeached for sending our service people to Iraq in the first place.

[Thothmes]

7. Office holders

Being an offensive officeholder is not sufficient cause for impeachment/removal according to Article III, section 4 of the Constitution.

[bryant69]

10. Impeachment is the wrong move right now

They need to keep the focus on President Bush's refusal to budge on Iraq and his disdain for Congress. That way the fight is Congress verses the President. If we move back to Impeachment, the terrain shifts back to Democrats vs Republicans, and we don't have the votes to get very far.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

11. I cannot trust government officials

that violate the constitution nor politicians that won't defend it. I will not go along with politicians that say its not a good time for it when crimes have been committed against the people for that is nothing more than submission to government officials right or wrong. It is not freedom nor the freedom handed to us to protect.

[bryant69]

13. That's your call

I think Congressional Democrats are taking the right and effective approach to dealing with President Bush; and I'm interested in results.

Bryant

[mmonk]

15. What are the results so far?

[bryant69]

19. The Results have not completely materialized yet

The appropriations bill kerfluffle has put President Bush in an uncomfortable situation, and is moving Republicans to speak out against his executive power. But I believe results are more likely to come through this method than through yours.

Bryant

[mmonk]

20. Hopefully a republican will do the right thing.

The problem I have is this is so much deeper than trying for an effective check through legislation to counter or slow the executive branch or a legislative attempt at drawing down a war.

[GOTV]

27. The results are that Bush has not been vindicated and aquitted by the Senate....

... like Clinton was.

The result is we still have pressure to put on the administration.

[mmonk]

17. Also, when discussing results,

take a look at the person in my sig line and say yes, the people are sufficiently being protected.

[madokie]

23. not enough votes, is that a for sure thing

don't you think that maybe some will vote on the merits rather than taking the party line, I happen to think so, so I don't buy the not enough votes argument. that to me is an argument of a bunch of criminals so again, to me, that is suspicious at best. Impeachment proceedings need to be started and then let the rest take care of itself. if there is not enough votes then it fails, so be it
just saying

[Raksha]

36. The closer it gets to November 2008, and the more dirt

Conyers and Waxman dig up about the "missing" RNC e-mails, the more Republican votes we are going to get. Sooner or later (probably sooner) the rats are going to start jumping ship wholesale.

[lonestarnot]

21. Kick & Recommend!

[EFerrari]

22. If you haven't seen it already, check out this video Monkeyman posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x22551

[EFerrari]

25. There are so many cases that could be made, it's ridiculous already.

Violating FISA, not mounting a defense on 9/11, letting New Orleans drown, faking intelligence for their fake war, torturing American citizens and denying them due process. Pick a card already.

[GOTV]

26. Obviously - and the Clinton impeachment demonstrated the wrong way to do it. n/t

[mmonk]

28. Its pretty much madness.

In the case of Clinton, there weren't any high crimes and misdemeanors against the constitution that merited impeachment and yet he was. Now we have an executive branch that is setting new standards in terms of the volume of high crimes and misdemeaners against the constitution and impeachment is off the table. Can't get any more backass backwards than that.

[GOTV]

31. It's unfortunate (or maybe inevitable) that it should happen now...

... when the president's party still has so much control over the workings of government.

The heat has to be put on GOP Senators so that they think their political career depends on thowing Bush overboard.

[mmonk]

32. I agree wholeheartedly.

[unblock]

34. exactly. it's the juxtaposition of clinton's impeachment with shrub's non-impeachment that's nuts!

i'm mean, come ON!

[Jack Rabbit]

29. I want something more than you are suggesting

Like many at DU, even though I know better, I use the single word impeachment as shorthand for a process that starts with investigations by congressional committees and ends with a vote of conviction by two-thirds of the Senate.

That means the evidence of wrongdoing has to be clear and convincing enough to get about twenty GOP Seantors to vote for conviction.

I continue to believe that can be done.

And yes, I also believe there was nothing accidental about the losing of the e-mails. Perhaps it's time to cordon off the White House with yellow tape and start investigating the place aas a crime scene.

[mmonk]

30. Concerning the "losing" of emails, you're correct

in that there aren't accidents involved just like we didn't go to war on "faulty intelligence", but "manipulated stove piped intelligence" and that wasn't an accident either.

[sendero]

35. It only requires..

... popular support of the country. think we've got that? Remember, the Reps' impeachment of Clinton COST THEM POLITICALLY.

Do you want to put the Reps in power for another decade? As of right now, the presidency is ours to lose (unless we nominate HRC in which case it will be theirs to lose), but I'm not so sure that would be the case if we dive into "impeachment".

Besides, what would it actually accomplish in terms of helping the country? Reps would still be in power in the Executive. Cheney would be the SAME as Bush.

If the Dems will get off their asses and SEIZE the email servers and backups at gwb43 before they've been totally cleaned, we could GET popular support and get it done.

[unblock]

37. i'm not suggesting we do it in 24 hours

as with much visible congressional activity, it works much better if the nation is prepared properly. you have to sell it first. same goes for health care as goes for wars as goes for impeachment.

yes, i'm aware that the current investigations MIGHT be an early step in the direction of impeachment, as they might help build the popular support you mention. hopefully, they will be shocked, SHOCKED! to find impeachable (or even criminal) offenses during the course of the investigations. but for now, i take them at face value that impeachment is off the table.