Explain to me how the Senate can impeach with so few votes.

This is a sincere question because of the attacks here on John Conyers and others. I don't see how it can happen.

Impeachment process



Could it be that Conyers is just being realistic?

They are doing the investigating.

it be so - we have the 'goods' - if the Senate is smart enough to ask the right questions.

and the public will force their Republic senators to do what's right and convict their asses.

Isn't that what they are doing?

(Emphasis on past tense.) He currently HAS the evidence he needs. (Emphasis on present tense.)

Is it better to try and lose?

Just asking.

I was in favor of investigations and waiting to see the evidence. That was 6 months ago. The evidence is there. It's time.

have the debate at all.

Or did you think Reid screwed up on that?

Better to try and lose than to not try at all in fear of losing.

And why is everyone so sure we'd lose? It's not a matter of counting the votes - it's a matter of getting the votes. You don't get them until you work for them.

I read that if they try for impeachment and lose (and they will because NO Republics will cross party lines and stand with the Dems -- even the blowhard Specter will say all the right words, but cave to his party in the end) that none of the crimes can then be prosecuted. Ever. So I'm not sure it's such a great idea. I do trust Conyers, Feingold and a few others in Congress to not be bullshitting us and to know what they're doing to deal with this the best way.

OTOH, I think there would be a very good chance we could succeed with a cheney impeachment. Thanks to Kucinich, all they have to do is sign on.

Impeachment and criminal trials are two different matters, so there would not be a double jeopardy issue as you say. Even if the impeachment trial in the Senate fails to convict, there could still be a criminal trial later.

The Senate takes the info...and decides there isn't enough. With Clinton there wasn't enough...with Nixon there WAS but he resigned before the vote.

.

What they are doing now is over site. That good, it's been a while.

But don't confuse over site hearings with an impeachment inquiery because they are not the same thing.

Don't worry, by the end of the impeachment hearings, everyone is going to know how corrupt these people are. They will have to do what's right and impeach.

What's wrong with that?

but beginning impeachment hearings in the House allows them to get the documents they need and witnesses up to the hearings who are compelled to testify what they know and when did they know it.

It's the only way that Congress will get answers from the Bushies on a range of investigations. So...it's worth it to begin Impeachment in the House (we have the votes if our Dems vote in a block) to be able to get the information we need.

Since the Solicitor General has signaled he won't appoint a Special Prosecutor...then it means a big court fight. Impeachiment Hearings would bypass that.

meeting under a banner of impeachment doesn't give them any special powers.

Yet over 40 Senators have their heads placed firmly up Bush's butt.

It's win-win for us. Show Republican corruption. No matter how the media spins it, the Republicans are going down.

airing the evidence.

Two thirds?

What's wrong with the hearing and investigations they are doing right now?

The hearings will be aired on TV. The American people will see the evidence. They will demand justice.

But without hearings, the evidence won't be aired.

Yes, I believe Conyers has enough evidence now.

Nixon's investigation didn't even get to the actual impeachment stage. The swiftness with which his republican partisans abandoned him was startling.

When the ship starts to go down, the rats will flee, and the votes will be there.
Or we could have martial law.

I don't understand what needs to be aired? The actions that Bush would be tried for are not in dispute. Bush admits to them and merely claims what he did was within his power.

Bruce Fein's argument for impeachment is the best of many I have seen. The facts are not disputed only the legality of Bush's actions. But the rub is that most of the Senate Republicans are on record supporting Bush's interpretation of his powers. Why would they now vote that policies they publicly endorsed were actually the commission of a crime?

Impeach = indict, which is done by the House, a body we control.

We barely control the Senate, so your question has merit. On the other hand, the Senate conducts a trial before it's vote and there is overwhelming evidence Bush and Cheney both should be convicted. It boils down to how well their crimes are exposed and whether the Republicans and reluctant Democrats are willing to ignore such criminal and treasonable conduct with elections on the horizon.

Republican support for Nixon collapsed as his (lesser) crimes were exposed. The same thing could very well happen to Bush and Cheney.

We can't know that.

This group in the senate are not usual.

have the votes, aaaaaaawwwwwwk!

It's the closest thing to the actual experience.

It is so confusing here.

And a lot of us feel that it's better to impeach and not convict - after all, was OJ vindicated by his acquittal? - than just sit around saying, We don't have the votes.

Isn't that perhaps leading up to impeachment?

comes across as inteneded to write off the possibility, and to suggest that we should stop calling for it. And I do think it's far less likely to happen if we don't let our congress know that we expect it of them.

I'm not insisting that it happen this very minute. But, as my uncle once observed, If we wait too long, it'll be too late. And the stakes are too high to let that happen.

I was thinking of getting a parrot that say "I don't care- Impeach!!"

:crazy:

congress is NOT going to begin an impeachment process having the necessary number of votes. They didn't have them to start with in the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial, same with Nixon and Clinton.

Good gracious, I really did not realize that all these hearings and investigations meant so little to so many.

It was a sincere question. But I have learned my lesson. Never say we don't have the votes. Just do it anyway.

Now if we can just get out of Iraq the same way.

it's not about counting the votes - it's about gettng the votes. Counting the votes is a snapshot on right now - getting the votes is an active process of investigations, hearings, revelations, and public scrutiny. As waffling dems see the evidence being firmed up they will know that they cannot waffle on the issue without jeapordizing their own position. As the investigations go deeper and deeper, implicated Republicans will see that the only way to cut their losses is to back impeachment, otherwise they'll go down with the administration.

With everything exposed, do you really think more than a third of the senators will persist in defending the criminals?

More than a third of the senators are still voting for the war in Iraq and that's completley and unambiguously a disaster.

If the Republicans in the senate are as amenable to reason as the Cindy Sheehan crowd assumes they are ("they'll just HAVE to vote to impeach!") why isn't she targetting them?

I really do think so. They are not normal in their loyalty.

But if they're illuminated by the lights of fairness and justice and moral compulsion, why isn't Cindy Sheehan targeting them?

And, if they weren't blindly following Bush, why do they keep authorizing the war? Hell, they even voted against the Jim Webb amendment.

Impeachment Hearings? We could get the votes in the House to at least begin the hearings while will get all the Info...e-mails, documents and witnesses up there to the Hill that Bush is witholding so that it will be like what happened with Nixon. The information Exposed will probably take months to sort through but it will likely change the opinions of many in the Senate. And if there aren't enough votes in the Senate at least the PUBLIC will finally know what we all here have suspected and KNOWN about the BFEE's enterprises since 2000 and before.

It's worth it to begin the Process in the House to get what they are holding back from us. House can't investigate any more than it has because Bush won't let them...

But I think it is important to notice we don't have the votes.

People are the same way about Iraq. We don't have the votes, but we have to get out anyway.

I want that also.

Badly.

But I am tired of seeing good Democrats bashed. I am tired of being referred to as not being a good Democrat because I see both sides.

I see the side of Congress, and people here don't want to do that.

I see the side of those who want to do it anyway, but I think it could lose us the White House in 08. Ordinarily I say do it anyway, but these are not normal times.

Everyone wants it their way right now...if not sooner.

:shrug:

When, during the hearings, Senator X pulls Senator Y off to the side and says - "It is obvious that this investigation is going to take you down - we have the emails and the cancelled checks - you can back us or you can go to prison" do you think they're going to continue to back Bush and pull a Cunningham? If there is no credible threat of exposing the shady financing, the kickbacks, the improprieties then no, we don't have the votes. But if we unload on them the full weight of everything we have, from Jack Abramof to the DC Madam, we CAN get the votes.

Afraid we might get our hands dirty?

You made me sound like I was disapproving of impeachment.

That is what ticks me off.

People like me are now bad guys for nothing.

All we did was question why a good man was being asaulted so vigorously. That maybe he had a point.

Thanks.

You keep saying "we don't have the votes".

You also say you favor impeachment but, saying that, you don't want to impeach. That's something I just don't get.

I'm not attacking anybody. I simply believe that the only way to get the votes is to start the process. Start the investigations with the threat of real consequences so that people will show up when subpoenaed, and tell the truth, under oath, to the committee, knowing that there is a high probability that neither Bush nor Cheney will be around to protect them the way they protected Libby.

There is an answer to the "we don't have the votes" claim. That's all I'm saying.

If we start knowing we can not succeed?

And by 'succeed' I assume you mean 'convict' - that has nothing to do with impeachment. Impeachment, being the investigation, testimony, and bringing of charges, is a forgone conclusion - all we have to do is do it. Conviction in the Senate is an entirely different process.

Nonetheless, I maintain that with the WH being brought before the investigating committees, under oath, that the evidence that will be revealed to the public will put the senators in the position of either convicting, or of openly defending clearly criminal violations of the constitution - meaning they can kiss their careers goodbye when THEY are up for reelection.

Just because we don't have the votes right now that does not mean we cannot get them as the impeachment moves forward.

Sorry for shouting...but...focusing on the SENATE and the VOTES obfuscates that HOUSE can INVESTIGATE AND HAUL THEM IN TO TESTIFY...and GET THE DOCUMENTS.. WITHOUT AN "Independent Prosecutor" like STARR and with the Solicitor General saying HE IS NOT INCLINED TO APPOINT ONE we have NO RECOURSE!!!

IMPEACH IN THE HOUSE!

again...I apologize for screaming in full caps for emphasis.

Everyone wants out of Iraq without the votes, they want impeachment without the votes....and I am asking honest questions.

and NOT the Senate, though... :shrug: What is it you are thinking on this?

Q. What is the Senate's role under the Constitution?

A. Once impeached, high officials are tried by the Senate. Article 1, Section 3, specifies, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

You seem to be saying the Senate has no role.

what is it you don't get about why we shouldn't Impeach...given that House can replace the lack of Special Prosecutor or Independen Counsel (which Ken Starr tarnished so badly the Law about that was allowed to EXPIRE without anyone renewing it?) :shrug:

I feel I'm in a "circular argument" with you.

when we don't have the votes.

What's with this yelling at me?

Not having the votes is meaningless. It has nothing to do with impeachment. Impeach = indict. Impeach does not = convict. After impeachment, the senate weighs the evidence and either convicts or does not convict.

This has been explained to you a dozen times and you always come back with "we don't have the votes".

The base tenet of republicanism is selfishness. There is no way the currently recalcitrant senators are going to cut short their careers for Bush's sake. When the public sees the evidence from the impeachment hearings on their televisions every day piling up to ensnare their senators, those senators will repudiate Bush to save themselves, knowing that if they don't they will be replaced in the next elections.

And if the senate does not convict, we get to replace a lot of republican senators. Either way, we win.

to have congressional hearings vs go thru the process of impeachment. I do not understand it but it is as it is for now. I will continue to write to them saying it is not their right to keep it off the table-as it is a tool given to the people to use when necessary.


the votes are not there, YET

Some at Kos are questioning. I believe both are lawyers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/3/174610/8900

Digby:

"Finally, there is the most important and indisputable fact that Bush and Cheney will never be convicted in the Senate. This isn't the GOP of 1974 and they will never cross over in enough numbers. They won't do it even if video tapes of Bush personally giving hush money to Scooter Libby turn up. Let's not kid ourselves about that reality. The fact is that impeachment will probably bring their caucus together."

More Digby:

"But the risks are high that if you don't have a specific (and somewhat simple) crime to point to and a good chance of at least getting a quick impeachment vote in the House, that it could blow back pretty hard on the Dems. This is not because people like Bush and don't want him out of office. It's because they see that the presidential campaign is in full swing and know that Bush will be out of office soon anyway."

That is exactly how a lot of my neighbors feel. They really don't see the whole picture...but that is a fact of how they feel...right or wrong.

Meteor Blades:

"But whatever they do, it's important to remember that impeachment is a nuclear political act, and because it's a nuclear political act it has to be judged on that basis with a clear view of the political playing field. The consequences of voting impeachment out of committee and failing to get a majority in the House --- or if we get a vote, failing to convict in the Senate (which is inevitable) are what's really at issue. I'm willing to consider that it's worthwhile anyway. But regardless, everyone needs to decide this course based upon the reality that Bush will not be convicted and barring an untimely demise, will not leave office before January 20, 2009.

So the question I ask is this --- is a failed impeachment going to hold them accountable? If so, then I'm for it. But if it actually ends up getting them off the hook, then not so much. It's not such an easy call."

Me, myself...I don't know.

But this is dangerous time for all of us and especially for Congress.

There are no easy answers.

I almost feel like starting a post saying we have to get out of Iraq right now. We don't have the votes, but that doesn't matter...we have to do it.

People here are not very good sometimes at seeing both sides.

I don't care if we don't have the votes. If you think votes matter you are wrong. Out now.

Its just that, right now, we're in a very, very bad spot. A constitutional crisis spot, some say.

The Executive has, by fiat, decreed that no one can be held accountable by the Congress.

The Congress needs to push back and push back hard.

Expose them and their actions (a la the Gonzo hearings)

Subpoena

File contempt for ignored subpoenas

Hold more hearings that show those who are ignoring the hearings are, in fact, at the CENTER of the crimes.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

(For what its worth, the people who are attacking Conyers, are not on our side, either. They can criticize him all they want. But to attack him is beyond the pale, IMHO. He is crucial to moving this thing forward.)

((Further, many of us who are strongly in favor of impeachment have been connected to the "impeach now" crowd, when, in fact, we are in the "keep up the pressure until impeachment becomes the overwhelming desire fo the country" crowd. "Impeach now" is a silly notion that is much more emotion than logic and sound strategy.))

yet I agree with the your entire post.

Maybe we need better labels.

Frankly, a pissing match over executive versus legislative powers is more liking to push the Blue Dogs and New Dems in the House over to supporting impeachment than 100 secret prisons and a million warrant less wiretaps.

this stupid question over and over:

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

You do the work this time...

There is a group here who know only one word...impeach. It was that way about the war last year, but they shut up about that. Now they want to impeach. None of the investigations matter, nothing matters but impeachment.

Can we get out of Iraq the same way...without the votes. Good. I'm for that.

I asked a fair question. I have been called more names here the last few days by impeachment demanders than I have since 2002.

Stop being insulting.

this group is for DUers who WANT impeachment, it is not a group for debating the pros and cons of impeachment.



its over on the GD board....so it'll be over soon....yea..right........

I asked a decent question here. You would think I was Unamerican for asking it.

It won't be over.

I am not so sure I am for it anymore after all the bashing I have gotten.

"Explain to me how the Senate can impeach with so few votes."

If I had a dollar for every time someone has posted that (rhetorical) "question" here at DU I could afford to buy health insurance. :)

You've been in those threads. We've told you and others dozens of times that you've got the cart before the horse. You don't "wait until you have the votes" before beginning a Constitutionally necessary process.

You begin the process and with the proof brought out you get the votes.

The process may have already begun.

I expected Conyers to begin it the day they Dems took office in January...(well, the day after -- give them some time to party) but it didn't...'cause that coward Nancy Pelosi and her DLC opponents/allies "took it off the table" for expediency's sake. Conyers doesn't seem to have the stamina anymore for a Constitutional battle but we shall see.

The groundwork is being laid in the Senate oddly enough with the gonzales stuff, etc. It WAS a Joint Session with Sam Nunn at the helm that began the nixon process so maybe it isn't that odd.

Anyway, impeachment is a political act. There's already sufficient public opinion against cheney to begin with him if the Dems were able to overcome their invertebrate tendencies. bush is also low-hanging fruit and should be addressed as well. I would vote for a two-fer--both bush and cheney -- a double impeachment/trial...

Sorry if I sounded snarky but I HAVE answered this question so many times... :hi:

I think we risk by stepping in without the votes in this climate.
This has been an insulting board all of sudden about impeachment

It was planned elsewhere, like much is, and brought here to present.

But others have rights to thoughts as well.

I guess I am not surprised to just about alone on this, but I was surprised that there is absolutely no tolerance toward any of us who differ.

No tolerance at all.

It it going to hurt our party far more, this intractable attitude that the number of votes doesn't matter....than anything the Dems are doing.

No credit given for the hearings and the investigations. Their efforts do not seem to matter.

I find that sad and scary, and it is like a stirring up the Democratic waters by known and unknown (libertarian?) groups. I had heard there was a connection, but did not really believe it until now.

not dangerous.

Just overused... :hi:

I want out of Iraq today. But we don't have the votes.

Don't worry, there will be a forum so those idiots like me won't subject others to our gross ignorance.

I just hope you can hear me speak from over 45 years of political, movement experience.

I was against Vietnam when it was dangerous to be against Vietnam. I saw the worm turn. I saw public opinion change and, way too late but eventually, the war was ended...

I was against nixon when it was dangerous to be against nixon. He looked utterly invincible in Nov of 1972. No one could touch him... I saw the worm turn. I saw public opinion change and, way too late but eventually, nixon was gone.

I was against ray-gun/bush/clinton/bush. I am against the corporate fascist takeover of the U.S. But no one could touch the right-wingers and triangulators. I'm seeing the worm turn. I'm watching public opinion change.

Over 60% of the public is already ready to impeach and remove cheney...where are the Democrats?

A majority are ready to impeach and remove bush for lying us into Iraq...where are the Democrats?

Oh, yeah, they're waiting for the votes...

I guess they don't remember history either...