Nixon Impeachment Schedule.

Wikipedia covers this if you google "Impeachemnt of Richard Nixon".

Feb. 1973, Sam Ervin's committee began investigating the quesionable political activities of the Nixon Administration.

Oct. 1973, the "Saturday Night Massacre" took place.

Oct. 1973, the House begins impeachment process.

July 1974, Nixon tapes ordered released.

July, 1974, House approves 1st Article of Impeachment.

August, 1974, Nixon resigns.

That's over a year and a half from start to finish (Nixon's resignation) and it never got to the Senate so you'd have to add more time for that.

If anywhere near this schedule were to happen in Bush's case, it would come very close to the end of his Presidency. I am trying to decide if it's worth it. With all of the other obscenities (Executive Orders threatening my rights of free speech, for example) that this Administration is perpetrating on the American people, not to mention the war, don't we have enough to do? How many other balls get dropped to pursue Impeachment?

Please don't flame me. I'm just trying to figure this out myself.

Do you really think those bastids will stick around for an impeachment trial?

I NEVER thought I'd be saying this but I think Nixon, deep down, cared about the country. No such thing with Bush. But even without a trial in the Senate, the Nixon process took quite a while. Also, we'd have to Impeach Cheney too.

We impeach Cheney first

because he was told he'd lose in the senate.

Bush has no such fear.

I said to my dh recently that the impeachment process most likely would not be able to be completed, given the time frams, but it would still be nice to get it into the history books.

at least I think they can do that, though they most likely would drop the process once he was out of office.

the Clinton impeachment happened within weeks.

In any event, Even if impeachment happens in the House there are no where near enough votes in the Senate to convict. Bush/Cheney impeachment is a futile, waste of time and effort.

Furthermore, impeachment is not punishment, nor is it true justice. We need to concentrate on stopping the war in Iraq, win the WH, win a veto proof majority in the Senate and increase the majority margin in the House, thenn prosecute and imprison ever last one and then turn them over to the ICC for further prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity in 09.

Were you not alive? Starr was appointed in August 1994 (after Fiske cleared Clinton in Whitewater). On September 9 1998, after spending $70 Million on the investigation, Starr gave his report to Congress. Clinton was impeached in late December, 1998.

So, yeah, once the investigation is done, and hoping we find the blue dress, it could happen "within weeks."

The Clinton impeachment started the day he won office (well, actually within a few weeks of the election a group was formed to impeach him) in November 1992 so you could say it took six years!

so I guess in a vague way you are correct.

$79.3 Million. Starr was only half of that.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/

I'd be happy to provide documentation to support anything else I said.

and has all those old stories bookmarked.

Out that one of the reasons that Clinton was impeached - the Repugs never say never.

They go for it. They are tenacious. They are the junk yard dog of politics while the Dems are the poodle running around trying to be liked.

This is why in the discussion of impeachment that Bill Moyers hosted - the comment kept being made that currently we have no statesmen or stateswomen - just politicians.

That is the real reason and difference on why Nixon was impeached and Bush will get a "get out of impeachment" free card.

it avoids the preznits pardons. If they are tried for their crimes after they are out of office *ss cannot pardon them.

Impeach because it's the right thing to do.

Disturbing, too.

I'm horribly disturbed by the nay-sayers.

If we don't push for impeachment, we are part of the problem. Complacency could lose us everything!

Even under impeachment, the administration will function. As you say, it's very likely to take as long as the time is left for the administration and unlike Nixon, GWB and Cheney don't have the patriotism it takes to step down (I never thought I'd say that Nixon was an honorable man, but in light of this bunch he's a hero).

It's going to take time and in the meantime we are engaged in a useless and dangerous war.

We need to have this dialog, and while I support impeachment 100%, we need to be reminded that it will be time-consuming indeed and may not check GWBs desperate power-grab, either.

The president and his administration have broken the law, not just once but numerous times on numerous fronts. These actions demand punishment as in the case of any run of the mill law-breaking. We don't condone theft, murder, kidnapping, torture, yes, and even wiretapping from any citizen. There is absolutely no reason to condone it from the executive branch of the government. If they are not impeached, their actions have been condoned...an outrageous concept.

to take. I completely understand what you're saying but I am wondering if taking the criminal prosecution approach would work better and send a message to future presidents.

... and many of the separate Congressional investigations all lead to the WHite House.

Impeachment could be addressed in 'weeks' and whether the Senate voted to remove or not, there would be a therapeutic effect for the nation as a whole.

... and not the crimes. It will be obstructionist Dems, political payback, Pelosi's power grab, what will the vote count be, what will happen in the Senate, is this good or bad politically.

They will NOT focus on the crimes while there's the impeachment spectacle

Impeachment is a process ... one in which the House looks for evidence of crimes committed. Think about what will be highlighted in an impeachment investigation.

To adopt your theory we must believe that people would be repulsed by the fact that an impeachment process is underway and not by what it reveals. The only way people would have this reaction is if there is no evidence to back up the charges.

... substance has been an option for the American people for the last 6 years. They DO NOT choose it and I don't see what magical power impeachment has to change what people choose to watch on TV.

documented and they have now defied Subpoenas. Comparing it to Nixon is hard because it was all so different. Maybe comparing it to Clinton's Impeachment would be better... That only took a few months if I remember correctly, and wasn't over Whitewater investigation but about perjury concerning Lewinsky. :shrug:

Such as him bragging about warrentless spying on Americans, etc. The impeachment process could move very fast.

part of me wants article of impeachment drawn up if nothing else than to get some damned official record that not all of America supports what they have turned us into.

the rational part says "but so?" - and looks at the timeline and the high probability that 40-something pug zombies will not convict so it will be "only" impeachment, not removal


Feingold is introducing a censure bill - it will do nothing but put people on record as either approving or not. No teeth whatsoever. But if that's all we'd get out of impeachment, maybe the expedient thing is to push it through, and focus on fighting them at every turn. There is the outside chance it might pass where impeachment would fail.

it will be a very frustrating 18 months, though. If the congress gets tough with inherent contempt, maybe the final battle will be precipitated differently. Push them very, very hard on things where you can make headway, and they likely react like any bully, maybe hand us a slam-dunk impeachment case, not requiring any investigation timeline.

That, though, is like taking out a restraining order on an abusive spouse. As I saw someone say on news yesterday, "if they kill you the restraining order doesn't matter," and in some cases it seems the order is the "last straw" that precipitates that.

trying to make is that it's the right thing to do. This administration is guilty of numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Founding Fathers gave us an "out" for dictators like Bush and, under the right circumstances, meant for Congress to USE that power. It's not only their right but their duty.

And let's face it, it's not like Congress is doing a whole lot of what we elected them for in the first place. They continue to fund the war, no universal health care options even on the horizon, the treasury has been looted for YEARS to come, our military has been weakened to the point that I think we actually WOULD have to rely on militia to protect ourselves as our fucking military is STILL in the ME. So, yeah, since they're not doing ANYTHING about the dire problems this country is facing, yeah, I think they could find the time.

accomplished the biggest block of time. We could do this and their still would be time for them to go out and campaign for '08.

The court-ordered release of the tapes in July of 1974 really broke things wide open. We are nowhere being there yet. I think we are looking at a real fight of judicial review of Executive Priv.

it would go to the SCOTUS. Scarey thought with Roberts and Alito put in just for that purpose. They never should have been confirmed.

but to send a clear signal that corrupt, arrogant, and undemocratic government by the rich over the rest will not be tolerated in America.

And the rest of the world needs this sign as much as we do.

Votes, time etc. are meaningless. They must be held accountable.

because they believe Junior will merely run out the clock assume that there is indeed a clock. There are many who believe that the Chimperor may not just simply walk away on January 20, 2009. He doesn't follow the rules of power now. What proof do we have that he will follow them in 18 months? I say impeach now, while we have the chance. If the Senate won't remove him from power now, perhaps, nobody (in his lifetime) ever will. :(

if "many" believe that. It's nonsensical.

If you really believe he'd cancel elections (which he can't do, btw) and refuse to leave office, how would impeaching him change that?

He could MIHOP catastrophic events in early Nov. 2008, impose martial law, and cancel or postpone the elections for national security reasons. After 9/11/01, he got whatever he wanted, without questioning. History could repeat.

We must impeach now to protect the COTUSA from this domestic enemy, which in turn, would prevent any possible future MIHOP events, and save American lives abroad. Granted, sans a catastrophic event, it will be nearly impossible for this corrupt cabal to maintain power.

the federal government doesn't run any elections.

The federal government decides who occupies the WH. See Bush v Gore 2000.

because the federal government doesn't run any elections.

And even if, for some reason, all the states and territories canceled their elections, Bush's term still ends in January 2009. He's not staying on past that.

Also, on paper, Al Gore should have been sworn in on 1-20-01. We know how that turned out. The COTUSA says he must leave on 1-20-09. Junior thinks so highly of the COTUSA that he reportedly said, “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” It's marvelous that you have so much faith in this man and believe that he will (for probably the first time while in office) respect the aforementioned document on his expiration date.

edited for date screw-up

he'll name himself dictator and not leave office, but it's not gonna happen.

And once again, he can't cancel elections - the states hold elections, not the feds.

Your faith in the man doing the right thing for once in his life is duly noted.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If we don't use them for the greater good we loose them, period... And that is the end of the story

and asked the same questions you did and got flamed big time. Damn me for digging up history and putting things in persepctive.

There are several elements of the Nixon impeachment we never will know. He resigned before the entire House votes out the articles (which would have happened within a week or two of his resignation)...and then we never know how a Senate trial would have been. Would it have been quick or drawn out? In Clinton's case, the Senate phase went almost two months...so add this to your time line...taking this well into October or November of that year. Yep, it's a long, messy process.

A couple of notes on Nixon. First, we had a White House that, while stonewalling, still was complying with most court order and Congrssional subpoenas and inquiries. That's not the case this time. This regime is determined to play out the clock in the courts...since they worked so hard to stack the judiciary. Next, by the time House Judiciary committee was rolling, there were some specific charges sticking to Nixon...an unidicted co-conspirator...that became the framework for writing the articles and getting some Repugnican votes in committee. We don't have such a referral, yet. Allegations, yes...but no specific crimes like a Starr report that can be plastered on boooosh or cheney.

Impeachment can take two faces. One, which many wish for here, is to make immediate change...somehow that the votes will materialize and booosh and cheney will be vanquished. Somehow this process is supposed to just happen...and anyone who questions it is obviously a freeper or troll or some nasty person. No matter about the timing or the lack of votes to convict...enabling booosh to keep plundering and much important time, that could be used to end the Iraq mess, has been wasted. Sorry, that's the reality.

The other face of Impeachment is the one we all can agree on...the one for the history books...the message of not only us standing up for our Constitution, but a message to the future that no one man or political party is above the law. An impeachment can, and should occur with a solid Democratic majority in both Houses and a Democratic executive...thus we don't have to deal with the stonewalling or possible pardons this regime surely would issue to any and all.

Right now the fight has to be on putting the brakes to the excesses of this regime. Tie their hands, slow them down, make them stay on the defensive. Pressure has to be brought to encourage the use of Inherent Contempt in forcing this regime to comply with the Constitution and on the "WINO" Repugnican Senators who are standing in the way of getting up or down Senate votes that will have some real, meaningful change.

Cheers...

He said that an Impeachment vote by the House would allow investigations to begin because it would require the Bushies to comply with all subpoenas of witnesses and to release all the documents the House investigating committees request. He said Congress MUST take back it's authority and this is the way to do it.

So...if he thinks Impeachment investigations must begin for the health of Congress then it's important to start them. Whether it results in removal or resignation of Bush/Cheney/Gonzo or not...the investigations are what we need to get the truth out. Without Impeachment and the investigations going forward we are left in limbo with Bush's stonewalling and Congress has given up it's last power.

:shrug:

I've heard Mr. Fein many times over the past couple weeks...including on Randi Rhodes last Friday. Also, John Dean offers some valuable insight here.

It's somewhat of a Catch 22...and I've heard several address this, including Fein...that the charges must be based on criminality. Writing articles strictly on political grounds will make the process less productive and would allow real crimes to slip under the radar in a rush to some political remedy. The underlying crimes go by the wayside as people are too pre-occupied with a political circus...and then the ensuing "let's move on" attitude that followed by the Nixon resignation/pardon and Clinton's inqusition.

To get the articles to stand up, the crimes must be used as the basis and thus the investigations must push forward so the evidence to get the charges for the articles can be compiled. See the problem? Congress through "contempt" doesn't take back the authority...it hands it to a regime lakey who will add another stonewall. Inherent contempt is the move that must be made to push the entire process forward. If witnesses know that their "Executive privildge" could get them some jail time, we'll start really pealing away at this corrupt onion.

It appears that Conyers and several others either have or are drawing up the framework for articles, but that they can't push the case forward yet. Also, let's see what happens with the Feingold censure motion. This will tell us a lot...and it may be a rude awakening to some here.

:hi:

It's possible putting Meirs under just "Contempt" and throwing it to the courts for Gonzo or his lacky to refuse to prosecute would be the first step in "illegality" with Justice refusing to deal with it..that puts it in plain defying Constitution territory. Then they could follow up by doing Inherent Contempt with Bolton or with others who wouldn't honor subpoenas.

Until Congress regains the power of the subpoena the full extent of the CRIMES for Impeachment can't be known. So...it's a catch 22.

But, I had the impression that Fein was much more positive towards Congress pressing for Impeachment so they could get more back up evidence for CRIMES than you did. I got the impression that both Fein and Dean felt there was enough evidence already uncovered that Impeachment proceedings could start. Just getting the investigation going (whether it ends in Impeachment or not) means that Congress has taken back the power it has given away. That's at least what my own read of Fein and Dean seems to say. :shrug:

Yes, I know it's procedure, but we all know this all ends up back to where we are now, except we're now in January or beyond.

Here's the "hair splitting" that I think confuses a lot of us...and it's how one bases the impeachment charges. A normal criminal investigation means uncovering the crimes to a certain standard before the case is prosecuted. Yes, additional charges can and are added on once the trial is rolling, but there needs to be an initial target/charge that drives this train. Yes, Fein and Dean and you and I see many crimes that have been committed here, but that's not up to the level where charges can be written with a "legal underpinning". To get this, you need solid evidence of lying or obstruction...things that only memos and direct testimony can provide. The hunt is on to get some real crimes. I'm hoping Leahy sets up Gonzo for some final nails on his purjury and obstruction charges...and there's evidence now to move forward. Unfortunately, that doesn't extend up the ladder. That's what makes the Scooter commutation so gauling...it's a deliberate move to prevent direct charges being applied to cheney that could be used for formal impeachment charges.

I'm far from a scholar on these matters, but I have tried to learn from all sides, pro and con, as to how to procede against an Executive that has gone totally out of control.

Damn right I'm frustrated :argh:

to figure on which is the best one to pursue....but I fail to understand how a "blow job" got so far...except that we had a Scaife run Media Enterprise along with GE/MSNBC who hammered "Criminal! Criminal! Criminal! for years at Clinton....so the people and even 60 Democrats were whipped into a fervor to Get Clintons out of the WH!

Since we don't have that...we still have Congress who must use it's power...THIS TIME FOR THE LEGAL REASONS and not a trumped up witch hunt.

I think Congress has to GO FOR IT... Otherwise they will have lost their power forever and have no credibility. I don't want to see any other President abuse the system like these folks and Reagan and and Nixon. If we give up...then we know our Dems are involved in the conspiracy...and it will be a conspiracy to make US Presidents KINGS from now on.

I think that grave prospect is why we have to keep pushing. Whether we are successful or not...we will at least know what we are faced with and can plan our lives a little more cautiously for the future where we will have little freedom and will have to learn to live with abuses if we are progressive.

Again, we get on several tracks on this topic...and its good to bring them all into the mix here.

As the GOOPers used to love to say, it wasn't the "blow job" that led to the impeachment, it was the lying about it. The "purjury"...the is/is crap in the Jones deposition and then again in the Grand Jury testimony. This gave Starr the legal basis to write his pornographic novel referal that Hyde ran with in the Judiciary committee. A specific "crime"...lame as it could be. DeLay railroaded the whole process along with a stacked corporate media with dozens of Repugnican sockpuppets and "experts" planted to echo the "Criminal" bullshit. Shall we say, the first overature of the Mighty Wurlitzer. However, it was "real" crimes that the articles were based on and this is what we don't have on either booosh or cheney.

The lies about Iraq are important...but I suggest more for a future trial in the Hague...and we haven't even chipped away at that monster. Unfortunately the IWR all but removes the "criminal" aspect of booosh or cheney getting direct blame. The war crimes are an international one...and then for it to have any bearing on an impeachment, there would need to be an indictment and/or conviction. Again...Catch 22 time.

Congress, sadly has had a slow learning curve here. Many didn't expect the Democrats to retake the majority going into the elections and then look at the mess the place was in prior to Pelosi being sworn in. The first problem was a 6-year hangover of Repugnican abuse...and Democrats learning how they could enact change against a regime and minority hellbent on obstruction. I see a lot more spine and resolve now than I did 6 months ago...and the more we stand strong and not tear each other apart, the more the fun remains on getting the ultimate justice we all deserve.

Here's hoping there's a day in a couple years when we can look back at these dark days and appreciate how far we've come.

Cheers...

:toast:

but feel we need to go for broke...well we are already broke. But, I'm not too partial to the "abused or battered spouse syndrome" that the Dems in Congress might be suffering. Too many of them enabled Bush's appointments early on when some of his power could have been nipped in the bud. There's so much money that's been floating around DC with Dems getting some of the leavings ...so that most hands are soiled and tainted by the lobbyists and enabling thats taken place. Gephardt and Daschle are now lobbyists. They could have done far more when Jeffords switched his vote giving them some leeway coming off the popularity of Clinton and the anger of Dems over Selection 2000.

I'm not confident of the Hague, either, because they'd have to haul Blair and Berlosconi's butts in there...and there's NO WAY the "Global Powers that Be" will have any part of "war crimes."

I guess I'm more cynical than you about this and think more along the lines of Howard Zinn's thoughts on our Government.

I always appreciate hearing what you have to say, though. And, do have periods where I try to give our Dems in Congress a little credit.

:hi:

as to why impeachment is preferable even if there is no supermajority.

could have. It is a lot to think about.

nice attempt to confuse those who know better.

remark. I think it is possible to have a discussion and to air different opinions without your brand of snark. Take it somewhere else. These issues are too important to waste time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1407479&mesg_id=1409527

It's not intended to be a snark. There's a long list of posters who claim */Cheney cannot be impeached because there is not enough time.

The Democrats can move through Congress what they choose to move. The impeachment of Clinton shows just how fast it can move.

The problem, Raven, is that the Democrats have no will to do so because 1) they see not impeaching as politically expedient for 2008; 2) as some have stated on AAR, they don't want to remove the 'unitary executive' idea because they see their time coming in 2008 and want to have the same power; 3) they have no spine and cannot go toe-to-toe with the worst president in our history; and 4) they drink from the same corporate well as the Republicans and rocking the boat would upset their corporate paymasters.

Impeachment is not an option of the Constitution. It is demanded by the Constitution when High Crimes have been committed. We now have high ranking Republicans calling for impeachment. Generals who identify with Republicans calling for impeachment.

What we have on the Democratic side is Pelosi and Reid off the impeachment table.

I'd do a little reading up here:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/impeach.html

From the start of the Lewinski mess to "sine die" the process went well over a year. The Jones purjury trap that set the whole circus in motion began on January 17, 1998...this led to the Starr Report in early September. The debate in the Judiciary was on October 8th, it didn't get to the full House until December 18-19. Then we get to the Senate in February. And this doesn't take into account the years of garbage picking by Starr to find something/anything to nail Clinton on. We don't have an IP this time.

But why should facts get in the way of attempting to wish something to happen.

about procedure.



From the announcement to the impeachment (24 Sep to 12 December), we have about 12 weeks.

For Cheney, the House has HR 333 already on books. If Nancy got on the impeachment table, we'd be at the Judiciary Committee announcing the impeachment inquiry is to begin.

For *, he's already admitted that he has wiretapped and broke FISA laws. He continues to break laws with signing statements and he continues to give countless examples of breaking separation of powers. He lied us into war about Iraq. Et cetera. Et cetera.

The case against both */Cheney has been made and if the Democratic leadership had a ball between them, you could move towards articles of impeachment just as fast in this Democratically-controlled House.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm

12 weeks from point B to C...and how did this result?

Sorry...the "blowjobs" were in '95 and '96. Let's try to stay on the discussion here. Even on your truncated timeline, we bypass the Judiciary Committee altogether and forgo a Senate trial?

And again...I know this is a tedious question, but it's never answered...and I'm certain you'll punt on this as well. What good is a political impeachment without a Senate conviction?

up for the Constitution, for one thing. Then, there's sending the signal to future presidents that you will be impeached if you commit crimes. Without it, you lower the bar on the accepted level of criminality in the White House.

Parsing? I don't think so. The Republicans moved impeachment through Congress lightening fast and that was the sole point.

We have a president who routinely flaunts his criminal acts before Congress and the American people. We don't need a blue dress to bring HR 333 before the Judiciary Committee.

The case against them is ready NOW.

Clinton went ahead and bombed Kosovo and finished out his term. Do you think a House impeachment without a Senate conviction would stop booshie from invading Iran? Now c'mon. Other than bogging Clinton down, shutting down the government for the better part of 6 months and distracting from little things like Al Queda (wag the dog, ya know), the only benefit of that impeachment was to distract and derail Clinton from being effective.

No need to sell me on the criminality. Read my posts and you'll see I want these bastards on trial in the Hague for war crimes and to root out ALL the criminals and enablers in this regime so we can totally discredit and repudiate all that's gone on. It's not just standing up to the Constitution, it's standing up to International Law and human decency. I want real results, not symbolic ones that prevent real justice from occuring.

I'm all for bringing HR 333 up for a vote. Let's see where it goes. And then look at what's being ignored in the process. Care to trade a 12 week (i'm using your timeline) show trial that results in an acquital rather than defunding the Iraq fiasco or forcing this regime to comply with subpoenas and get evidence of more and substantial crimes?

evidence that they http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/">lied about going to war with Iraq. I think that's enough of substantial crime to proceed with impeachment.

I agree with you on the Hague.

IMHO Nixon did not resign out of a sense of concern for the country.
He had a monumental ego, just like someone else I could name.
He saw 'enemies' everywhere. Hell, he made LISTS of them.
And he and his toadies stayed up nights figuring out ways to do them in.
It was ALL about him.

He resigned 2 jumps (maybe just 1) ahead of the impeachment posse.
The noose had been tied and the gallows were almost ready.
And he already had his pardon in place from the vice-president he had appointed, Gerald Ford.
No problemo.

Of course he was humiliated in the eyes of rational Americans.
And still, he gave his trademark two-handed 'V' for victory salute on the steps of the helicopter that whisked him away from all that 'unpleasantness'.

I think to not impeach Bush and Cheney may set a dangerous precedent and vastly raise the bar for what future generations and members of congress judge to be 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

Of course as long as we don't have the votes to do it, it's all moot anyway.
Don't forget that it took a delegation of previously loyal repugs to go to the white house and tell Nixon that if he didn't resign, he WOULD be impeached and likely convicted.
And I believe the main reason for that action was to try and salvage what they could of their precious party.
I don't see that happening, at least not yet.

The Ervin Committee: authorized by a vote in the Senate of 77-0

The House impeachment inquiry: authorized in the House (in Feb 74) by a vote of 410-4

In other words, big bi-partisan votes.

Even starting the Clinton impeachment inquiry had the support of 31 Democrats.

We're not anywhere close to that yet.

American service personnel, America's international standing, the Justice Department, Constitutional checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, settled law, etc. Name which ones should continue to be sacrificed.

dropped and I'm not sure how we do all of that and Impeachment too. In a perfect world we'd run these two guys out in the matter of a few months, Pelosi would take over, all of the damaging Executive Orders would be rescinded. We'd have an election and begin rebuilding the country. I just don't think time is on or side in this.

even when out of power and getting testimony. Conyers wrote his book about George W. Bush vs. the Constitution from hearings when we were in the minority. Kucinich has put forth articles on Cheney HR 333. It's all a go whenever anyone wants to do it. Without impeachment, what's the guarantee we'll get those rights back? Seems to be heading in the wrong direction.

If there's enough time... doing the right thing should be done for its own sake.

Impeachment is the right thing to do.

Laws have been broken, BushCo must be held responsible.

If we do not impeach, if we just turn a blind eye because there isn't enough time or aren't enough votes, we are part of the problem

Impeach because it's the right thing to do.

Tell the bastards to resign. They won't, but it won't look good in the history books that more than 200 million people clamored for the resignation of both the president and vice-president of the United States in the fall of 2007.

As it was said, if not challenged now, those illegal powers will carry into the next presidency (supposing an actual election real or for show will occur)

Nothing like letting a bunch of criminals and killers get away with murder and crimes against the Constitution and the world huh? If they're not held accountable what President will be? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you remember how quickly the rethugs moved to impeach Clinton for lying over CONSENSUAL SEX?






Nah, nothing worth impeaching him about over here. Please move along, move along...


RAW

than one point of view on any given subject and that, in spite of our different opinions, we are all patriots. I love the cards but hope you've been off your ass and away from the computer and doing some real things to make a difference. I'd love to hear about them. Why don't you tell us, after 300+ posts, what you have been doing...on the street, if you know what I mean, to make changes in this country. My aching back and sore feet would certainly like to know what you've been up to besides telling people like me to fuck off.

What they are not seeing on the news, or reading in the papers, about every fucking last fact you can only find online jerkoff. I've been telling people what to keep in mind when they vote next, and what they cannot forget or sweep under thr rug because it's "uncomfortable" to talk about. I've been all but ostracized by my own family because I am so radical in telling people to wake the fuck up and contact their elected representatives.

Go hide under your bed and let them get away with it.

Who's the grown up... one who won't turn a blind eye to high crimes and misdemeanors or one who is still scratching their fucking heads trying to "figure things out"?

RAW

Midnight, the hour of darkness: Sufficient Republicans in Congress and the Senate decide to dump Bush and Cheney.

6 am. Congress gets up and eats a healthy breakfast.
7 am. Judiciary Committee meets, considers joint impeachment articles.
8 am. Judiciary Comm. reports impeachmnet resolution to the House Floor.
9 am. House meets to consider impeachment.
9:02 am. John Conyers moves to end debate.
10 am. House impeachs Bush and Cheney

High Noon. Senate convenes to consider impeachment.
3 pm. Senate indicts Bush and Cheney
4 pm. President Pelosi serves tea at 1600 Penn. Ave.