Would impeachment without conviction be worthwhile?

I think the big divide going on here over impeachment are not really as big as some people make it.

I think we ALL would like to see Bush and Cheney removed. I think we ALL believe he has committed impeachable offenses.

The big difference comes down to two areas:

1) the likelihood of conviction in the Senate, and
2) the order in which things are done: do we impeach, then investigate? Or investigate, then impeach?

Let's not argue in this thread about whether the votes are there, would be there, will be there, could be there, might be there, or not. I'm just curious if people think an impeachment that fails to result in a conviction in the Senate would still be worthwhile.

:sarcasm:

Impeach now or do nothing?

Why not keep up the investigations? Build a case? Build public support for impeaching Bush?

Why is it all black and white?

co. will just sit there quietly?

edit: You've seen the recent powers that bush** (or cheney) has given himself. Do you think he did that because he's bored?

I disagree.

If you think that, why wouldn't impeachment be "just talk"?

Investigate. Build a case. Build public support. Impeach.

Some seem to think that because a person is an impeachment hawk, that person is also foolhardy and detached from reality.

Doing nothing indeed. Why don't you get some fucking perspective?

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

Everyone that gets a subpoena must testify. That means Rove cheney etc. That alone makes it worthwhile. They can not sit back and claim some privilege and must testify under oath. I believe America would be watching this closer than the OJ trial. If Impeachable acts were done they would be brought out into the open..

That's not true at all.

No.

DICTATORSHIP

To let the bastards skate because we can't get the support for a conviction not only makes an impeachment a total waste of time and energy but I think it would hurt our chances in 2008.

...Maybe debate would lead to impeachment or

...maybe just censure or

...maybe appointment of an independent prosecutor or

...maybe we would find out about more misdeeds we don't already know about or

...maybe the country would find out which republicans want to defend WH misdeeds or

...maybe republicans would ask officials to resign rather than face impeachment or

...maybe more people would be exposed to the truth because impeachment would be a gigantic event or

...maybe the next president who wants to break laws would think twice about it or

...maybe it should be done because it is the duty of congress to do it or

...maybe journalists around the world would help investigate and uncover additional crap or

...maybe extensive public discourse in the media would help convince even more Americans of the necessity to impeach, or

...maybe other countries would see the rebellious effort and realize that all the insanity of the last 6 years is not reflective of our country or

...maybe the 16 year old Iraqi who has pledged to hate America and who will teach his kids and grandkids to hate America will see where his anger should be rightly placed

...maybe the world will have some hope that in 2009 it is possible that things could be quite different

...maybe deals would be cut behind the scenes, giving democrats in the house and senate more leverage with which to pursue other important agenda items

...maybe some faith in the constitution, in government, and democracy would be restored or at least given a chance

...maybe approvals of congressional dems would skyrocket

A LOT OF GOOD COULD COME FROM AT LEAST THE DEBATE.

to have that debate?

of the overall House. They fly below the radar. At most, a single soundbite makes it onto Yahoo news. Certainly, the rest of the world, including maimed civilians, don't see them and understand that someone is trying to do SOMETHING.

Impeachment is a full blown investigation...not a hearing....with powers that hearings don't necessarily have. The volume is turned way up. Front page news every day. Congressmen taking stands and making speeches, not just asking questions. The fear of God. Inside pressure from the GOP toward the WH to have someone resign. In a hearing, when something impeachable or immoral or criminal comes to light, only those people in the room decide if an issue is taken a step further...and without public scrutiny and encouragement, they are on their own. Let's get is out in the open?

To me, few of the potentially positive outcomes are achieved by hearings.

Turning your question around, what about impeachment scares you in ways that hearings do not?

impeachment is NOT an investigation.

In '73, the Senate conducted the Watergate hearings. They were nationally televised, and uncovered a LOT of evidence.

Only after those hearings were concluded did the House begin considering impeachment.

Today, they have a different slant in coverage compared to what was seen in the 1960s and 1970s.

you don't impeach and then investigate. You nvestigate, build the evidence, then impeach.

We're doing the investigations now.

the investigations will uncover something, but the leadership decides not to do anything with the information. It would be akin to what they saw in the 1980s after evidence of Iran-Contra came to light. A few low-level wonks get indicted and convicted, but the big bosses walk away free. Politicians would rationalize that it's time to move on.

That kind of notion is difficult to defeat, and I think it's showing up as people simply pushing impeachment at any scenario.

they now pursue their agenda of greed openly at our highest levels of government and at our greatest cost. Our Constitution. ENOUGH!

whether they should be stopped. The question is HOW.

Will a failed impeachment stop them?

Clinton was impeached, and his wife is now the odds-on favorite to be the next President.

If the investigations do turn up evidence of crimes, what happens if they rationalize it away in Washington with the excuse that it's in the past now and that we should move on and get over it? If American history since the end of the Second World War is any guide, then what does that tell us?

As much as some DUers draw parallels with another nation in the 1930s, Bush is not Hitler, and Bush's end isn't going to come in a bunker surrounded by invading troops. Bush still has a fair chance of getting away without much consequence not because the people wanted him to get away but because the power brokers thought it wasn't worth the trouble.

he's not going to be convicted. he's going to live the rest of his life as a hated man. Whether or not that bothers him is hard to say.

At the end of World War 2, the US played a role in writing the Constitution of the Federal German Republic, and one of the clauses inserted into that document is known as a universal jurisdiction clause that applies to international war crimes and crimes against humanity. The clause only activates in cases where the host nation fails to indict those in that nation's government accused of war crimes/crimes against humanity regardless of what the evidence says. In such situations, the aggrieved parties can bring forth a claim in Germany's courts.

To date, one case brought by several Iraqi civilians naming several government individuals including former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and several others in the Pentagon accusing them of war crimes surrounding Abu Ghraib and other aspects of the military occupation is in the courts. Whether the case will lead to convictions is not clear at all, and whether Germany will initiate extradition protocol against Rumsfeld et al. is even less clear, but it does serve as a back up if indigenous solutions fail.

If they do ask the US government to extradite such individuals, my only request is that they be tried in the city of Nuremberg.

a US president in prison, then all I can do is admire your optimism.

And if Germany is serious about extradition, they'd probably not do it while the people accused of crimes still enjoy sovereign immunity afforded to most government servants in the US. They'd wait until they leave office. Then they'd have no more protection than any private citizen. It's a long shot, to be sure, but it would be poetic justice if Germany came through in the end, but like I said, it's a long shot, but I can bet you Rumsfeld is never setting foot on German soil as long as that case is in court.

has no reason not to enter Germany.

One local politician posited that he could be arrested, and the story was blown up here.

...that an impeachment, regardless of conviction, would be good. A lot of people, when they look back and see that a President was impeached, automatically assume or know that he was bad, regardless of whether he were convicted or not. I'd be satisfied if we could attach that stigma to Bush and his master, Cheney, because I'm afraid years from now people will have forgotten just how despicable and sinister these two human beings are.

Of course, I'm still rooting for a conviction along with impeachment.

And he didn't do many, many other horrid things Bush II has done.

There's a huge difference between lying about a blow job and lying to Congress, spying on Americans, etc. etc. etc.

I'm talking about your claim that impeachment without conviction would automatically damage Bush. I disagree... if he's acquitted, the case will easily be made that it was all political (as the case was made with Clinton) and that the Congress overplayed their hand.

Politicizing will go on with or without impeachment proceedings. It's not a good reason to avoid doing the right thing.

There is plenty of fodder for impeachment in this case.

he was impeached,he got a bump in the polls, the Republicans lost two house speakers and lost seats in a 6-year election. The republicans were hurt, Clinton sailed.

I honestly can't see an upside to impeaching Bush and then failing to remove him.

frequency than mine. I don't see so well into the future as you do;)

with what you think would happen, but you need to have some evidence for it.

What do you think the likelihood of conviction is? 40%? 80%? Why?

I think you are the one who needs to answer your own questions. I'm merely disagreeing because 1) I have no crystal ball, and 2) impeachment is the right thing to do under the heinous circumstances.

So far, despite Bush's plunging popularity, Republican senators haven't defected enough to even break a filibuster, much less override a veto. That indicates they wouldn't vote to convict.

The Clinton example shows that the people don't like impeachment that is just political theater, and absent the evidence we need to gather, that's exactly how it will be portrayed by the republicans and the media.

Not a single Republican Senator now supports impeaching Bush. We need 18 of them to convict.


That's all evidence that the impeachment would fail - it's not a crystal ball, and the outcome is not a coin toss.

I think it would be a futile exercise in political masturbation that would ultimately do more harm than good.


Edit to add:

I'm almost reaching the point where I'd be willing to live with the inevitable aqcuittal just so poeple would STFU about it.

That's just it. And the impeach-bots don't get that's why there's a move towards censure. To spark a debate, incite attention and an investigation without consuming the Senate for the next 2 years. There are so many things they need to do to fix the mess we're in.

As Feingold states: "when future generations look back at the terrible misconduct of this administration, they need to see that a co-equal branch of government stood up and held to account those who violated the principles on which this nation was founded."

Can you elaborate? No one else seems to be able to... they just spew the same lines, without backing it up.

BTW, I noticed on another board that your a fellow "M" so Hello! from a Delaware Valley M :hi: :toast:

It's my opinion that acquittal will be viewed as vindication. A great deal of time will be spent, the message that will get out through the MSM will be "see, we told you this is what they really wanted all along" - "partisan witch hunt" - "it's just payback for Clinton" etc, etc. Memes that will be reinforced when the acquittal comes back. The majority of the public gets their information from the MSM, and that's what they'll get. I'd expect a certain amount of sympathy for Bush leading to a bump in approval ratings.

Whereas, Feingold's censure plan, which I think he could pull off, would take much less time at least affirm that wrongdoing took place.


Basically my view is:

Impeach and acquit = Bush still in office and "officially" vindicated

Censure = Bush still in office and now "officially" tainted

Nice to meet you! I'm a HAM from So Cal (Harbor Area, hence the HA).

Did you read this last M Bulletin? The 2% solution to war? What a wild ride it was reading that! LOL! And the flaming rightie about blew my mind. I guess Kool aid poisoning can hit anyone!

:)

I'm not convinced there would be an acquittal. I understand how the media would handle this, but with 75% disapproval, I'm betting there are increasingly more people who would support and embrace impeachment despite the media's blathering. And if you believe the numbers... some say 25% approval, some say 30%... I'm betting fewer and fewer people are believing the media.

:hi:

Yes, there seems to be a fair amount of that in the Bulletin, especially the letters. Have you been to the forums on the website? Lots of libertarians over there, but great conversations on a wide variety of other subjects. I tend to avoid politics over there, as you well know our motto ain't "herding cats" fer nuthin' :silly:



While my analysis applies only to MonkeyFunks OP. I'm pretty convinced that there would be an aqcuittal - at this time

I really believe that people like Conyers know what they're doing, and certainly know the private views of their colleagues better than I do. I think if the hearings continue and the legal wrangling over Exec Privilege plays out that we may finally see things come to light and then move forward.

What upsets me lately, is seeing good people like Conyers, Feingold and Pelosi dragged through the mud just because they disagree about this issue. I also think that things like yesterdays demonstration make it more difficult for people like Conyers because it plays right into their hands. Honestly, can't you just see the headlines?

In politics & PR it's not just what you do but how you do it. Right now I trust the Dem leadership in the House and Senate and I will defer to their judgement.

As much as I distrust ALL government at this point, I can see wanting to trust our Dems. Taking things slow, easy, measured and thoroughly researched is the way to go.

On the drag through the mud: It's to be expected. My hope is that they realized this was coming, kept their noses clean, and have very tough skin. Pelosi seems especially rugged in this regard. She's aces in my book, even with impeachment off the table. I've always felt she knew better and that the timing is the issue. And perhaps a bit of drama. Can you imagine the uproar if and when she comes out to say, well folks! Impeachment is BACK on the table! What a rally cry!

again.

That is a hefty price.

I keep hearing things like this, but never an explanation.

:eyes:

How about continuing the investigations and building a case? Present the evidence and build public support?

Why must it be impeach now or do nothing?

The Impeachment of Cheney would force him to bring forth
the Documents that he is refusing to reveal. Dems for the most part are blocking this. That the majority of Senate Repugs would vote Not Guilty is not a sure conclusion. Even if that happened, at the very least the info regarding Cheney's actions of the past six years would be somewhat exposed to more of the American Public and the rest of the World. That in itself would be worth the exercise.

you don't impeach and then investigate.

You have it exactly backwards.

Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Impeachment Inquiry

An impeachment inquiry is an investigation conducted by the House Judiciary Committee or one of its subcommittees or ad hoc committee to which it has ...

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/07/09/impeachment-inquiry/

Read about the genesis of Clinton's. Both were preceded by lengthy investigations.

Stick to the history books like white on rice. The Bush Family would hate that. What do you think they would be willing to do to keep little Georgie from going down in history as the Bush who might (was almost... whatever) be impeached?

Impeachment would be a stain on the entire family. But then again so is the truth about Poppy.
At any case these crimes cannot go unpunished.

making the Bush family mad is not one of them. That is politicizing it and making it personal, which is wrong and an affront to the constitution. It occurs to me that this is exactly why both the Democrats and the Republicans are going to resist impeachment, because that is exactly why the Repubs did it to Clinton.

codifies what they did to Clinton over NOTHING.

They will hammer us with that forever..."You say Bush was a criminal, but he was never even brought up on charges! Your boy Clinton was IMPEACHED!" And they'd be 100% correct.

It isn't about the conviction. It's about the process and the democracy.

.

Not saying the Bush situation is at all similar, but they don't have much to crow about for '98.

The Clinton impeachment was against a widely popular president, entirely about trumped-up charges specifically designed to embarrass, humiliate and hamstring the usurper who took Poppy's second term and interrupted their plans for invading the Middle East.

The Bush impeachment is about a hugely UNpopular president who is widely believed to have committed all sorts of crimes in his run up to the profit-making occupation of a non-threatening sovereign.

There is a huge difference, and while I don't give the American people credit for much, I think we as a whole can and will readily see that difference.

.

that is exactly how it will be framed. I saw a poll in the Washington Post yesterday where 70% of the Republican voters still support Bush, so he's still pretty popular within his party. They just don't get it yet. We need continued investigations so they will.

I look at my kids and think....we can send people away to prison for a long time for having a bag of weed...BUT if this administration runs roughshod over the Constitution, they send our men and women to die in an illegal war...and they stack the Supreme Court with bigots and misogynists...BUT...."we don't have the votes is our excuse"...how freaking pathetic...

how can I see a future for my children...when at this time where we must stand our ground and fight or be driven under the jackboot ...what future for them???


I am disgusted and disenchanted now....I am going off to read a book...I have to escape.

but I want them impeached AND removed, not impeached and acquitted.

So I support rigorous investigations that will lead the people and the requisite number of Senators to change their minds.

What good is it if they're impeached but still able to go to work every day so they can wage war and commit other crimes?

Is it possible to end it now regardless of what we do?

Worth taking a risk of not convicting?

Leaving the immorality and criminality of leaving him in office aside..yeah, it's well worth the risk.

and lost seats in the '98 election - a 6th-year election where the opposing party almost always wins big.

Gore got a lot more votes than Bush in 2000, and had they been counted, he would've won handily.

I think it's ridiculous to deny that Republicans hurt themselves by impeaching Clinton.

as much as the fact that it was purely political in nature; and had NOTHING to do with any real crime. Clinton was impeached because he lied about having sex.

That's not quite the same as being impeached for lying in order to start a war that would benefit the bank accounts of the pretzeldent, the veep, and all their little friends with big political $$$.

no two situations ever are.

But it was an impeachment effort that failed to result in conviction. do you really think the Republicans and a large segment of the media wouldn't portray a Bush impeachment as politically-motivated payback?

Why do people have such misplaced faith in the media and the American people? They think all of a sudden, if we just wave the magic wand of impeachment, everybody will fall into line, including at least 18 Republican senators. I have no reason to believe that would be the case.

They talk big now about not convicting, because they don't want to be faced with having to make that decision. Once the cards are played, though, they'll have to consider their own careers.

is to vote in a block and make the conviction vote come down along straight party-lines. Keep in mind that the majority of Americans do not support impeachment right now.

until you do the investigations, gather the evidence, and build a case. that hasn't happened yet.

on the federal level. Generally, there's a referral to the Judiciary Committee, then if still alive it goes to the full house for approval to proceed WITH OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION which may or may not end with written articles of impeachment approved by the house.

Moreover, there's plenty of evidence already. Impeachment COULD happen at any time.

I'll say that it seems like the progression of hearings is stimulating more calls for impeachment, which is a good thing. Might be considered a good strategy politically if the public DEMANDED impeachment from its representatives and we might eventually head in that direction. However, I'm not as interested in good political strategy as I am interested in addressing pressing, critical problems that are causing irreversible significant damage. Also...most of the public doesn't follow hearings so I don't know how much we can count on the public demanding impeachment. Best to rely on our reps to follow the law and do what's right...with our encouragement.

two recent polls put the numbers at 36% and 45%.

Unless a time machine has been invented recently, there is no way to determine what will happen in the Senate after impeachment, which is why the vote-counting excuse to not impeach is bullshit.

If Bush/Cheney were indicted on war crimes...that would get attention

... could release facts heretofore unknown, or covered up. That might change the minds of enough of the legislators to remove his sorry ass from office.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Why should we worry if he is removed from office or not. He has not worried about stomping on the toes of the American Public with the bullshit eavesdropping, wiretapping and other invasions of privacy.

If we impeach, even if he is not removed from office, it will be public record, and nothing that he can do will remove it from the pages of history.

Just my humble opinion.

before conducting a well-executed investigation?

That's the core of my argument - you do that investigation first, THEN you impeach. You don't impeach and then go on a fishing expedition.

tells me we're kinda running outta time, that's why.

In fact, the worst reason imaginable. We need clear evidence of explicit crimes that violated explicit laws that occurred on explicit days and committed by explicit people.

Without that, we shouldn't impeach. We need to push the investigations to get that information.

A: The rethuglican cronies who will NOT be reelected next term as a result of their complacency.

Q: If they are not tried, who looks bad?
A: The entire fucking nation...especially the wimp-ass Democrats.

how will the Republicans and most of the media characterize it? As a politically-motivated payback attempt for Clinton.

Bush will be vindicated. Acquitted. There will be a historical record that his excesses were NOT worthy of removal from office.

I simply can't understand why people think Republicans would come out worse in this battle, if we fail.

it's the Democrats who are going to get the worst of it if they can't remove them from office. Chimp and cheney remain in office and can control the spin.

But we're talking about the blood of thousands that the neocons have on their conscious...not spilt semen.

That being said I think it is important for 2 main reasons:

1: It places the crimes of the administration in the Congressional Record. Harder to obscure in history that way.

2: We find out exactly who doesn't support the constitution so they can be targeted in their next election.

-Hoot

Which officer committed which crime on which day? Which law was violated?

You need to put all that together BEFORE you impeach.

You want dates? Fine. On what days did the White House Iraq Group meet? That's where the broad strokes were laid down.

On what dates did Bush sign the orders to the intel people to surveil the citizenry without warrant? That other program Gonzales confirmed again today. The program that was in fact declared illegal by the DOJ and was not halted while a blessing was crafted by the DOJ.

What was the date on Gonzales' and Yu's masterpiece declaration that the Geneva conventions, a properly executed treaty and thus law of the land, quaint?

While we're at it, let's have a listen to what Sibel Edmonds has to say. Just for fun.

Conyers has hundreds of pages to choose from that demonstrate this administration has operated as a criminal enterprise. There would be much more forthcoming hauling these jokers before congress.

The thing is with impeachment hearings, would the press be able to bimbo it over?

-Hoot

Half of his staff had been indicted, convicted, or confessed. The Senate had already held nationally-televised hearings on his crimes.

THEN the House voted to start an impeachment hearing.

People who compare this to the Nixon case weren't paying attention. Nixon was ALREADY known to be a criminal before the House moved on impeachment.

I didn't follow it that closely being like 12. The DOJ has been covering tracks all along, it goes back at least to US Atty. Black who was demoted to after Jack Abramoff called someone.

Are you really claiming that subverting equality under the law so blatantly is not impeachable? It should not be pursued?

-Hoot

You never know how the minds of Senators can be swayed by the evidence presented at a trial in the US Senate.

You never know how the minds of PEOPLE can be swayed by evidence presented at trial in the US Senate.

You never know how phone calls and faxes from PEOPLE who have been swayed by evidence presented at trial in the US Senate can affect the votes of Senators.

But you know -- FOR CERTAIN -- that NO minds will be swayed if there is no trial.

IMPEACH them both!

but it's a reasonable guess that if they're not running from Bush with his 25% approval rating, and we can't even break a goddamned filibuster, that they won't vote to convict.

The idea that if we just impeach, they'll come around is baseless. When have Republicans EVER "come around" in the last 30 years?

If you build it they will come. Of course that movie was a fantasy and so is that kind of thinking.

It's like arresting somone and then going looking for a body & a smoking gun because well it just has to be there dammit it just has to!

Conyers asked for patients and frankly I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt after all these years.

So I went with option 2.

If they proceed with contempt charges and go from there, we will easily get the 67 votes we need.

as the rethugs when they were unable to remove Clinton from office.


EDIT: changed one word for clarity

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1396667

:shrug:

It really doesn't matter what the outcome of the hearings is as long as this administration, its actions and policies are irreparably damaged and more reasonable politicians fill the vacuum WHENEVER the office is next open.

do anything?

Do you think blowjobs are now illegal as a result of the Clinton impeachment?

If we can't solidly coalesce behind impeachment and the possible consequences of it's initiation - even with the one-a-minute drum beat here for impeachment, then where is the concensus? There is a quiet but quite large population here at DU that just doesn't want to be beat-on by the pro-impeachment brigade - and may be a little nervous about it's possible consequences.

most DUers want to impeach without a conviction.

Unbelievable.

I am not sure this is the kind of concensus needed.

I think it should be "Don't impeach unless you think the procedure will make a case which will encourage conviction in the Senate." That, for me, includes the fundamental problem I have with the 'impeach right now' crowd. The impeachment procedure in the House should build a case which will win over naysayers in the Senate. It won't be effective if it is put together shoddily, and conviction will fail. But if it is put together well, the Senate will have to convict or look stupid.

For the record, I don't favor impeachment if there is no chance of conviction, because it will make Bush stronger and make us look like vindictive fools.

now it's more than 2:1 that impeachment without conviction is preferable to waiting....


DU is nuts. Totally fucking insane. Wall-biting, cat-kicking insane.

This has confirmed my worst fears about DU. We hate Dems far more than we hate Republicans. God help us.

I don't think DU "hate(s) Dems far more than we hate Republicans" but, I do think it is indicative that many are either not familiar with the process of impeachment (despite the vigorous education campaign) or they are wanting it for purely emotional reasons and logic doesn't enter the equation. To me, some of the recent "battles" have been nothing more than tilting at windmills!

(I voted #2)

but hey, whatever trips both of your triggers...

Suffice it to say that 1988 the dems chose to let reagan walk, since the WH was sown in.

Tell me, did I miss the Dukakis administration?

And that is where they are heading

Take the time to explain how you think impeachment, without starting with investigations, will solve any of the current problems.

she'll lecture you about your knowledge of history, while making up all sorts of facts.

She really thinks that impeaching Reagan would've been a wise political move, and would've made Dukakis president.

but people who have looked at the process

Now tell me... how popular is Chenney right now?

Good, any other talking point in your quiver?

I really thought I might get a rational explanation, as opposed to insults. Oh well, live and learn...and if you are Vitters, get Luvs! ;)

it is called read some history... and read what legal experts are saying right now starting with John Dean

Worst than Watergate... and Conservatives without a Consicence are your starting point

As well as...

Nichol's The Genious of Impeachment

As to Mr. Funk, he has a serious problem with the Constitution, and those of us who want our reps to do their duty

it's the idiots who think impeachment is an obligation who donm't understand it.

And you're awfully cocky about your knowledge of history, considering you're entirely ignorant in the subject.

impachment and invenstigations go hand in hand

If you don't get that, it ain't my fault

Investigations ARE INTEGRAL TO THE PROCESS

investigate first. Then, when you've built a case, you impeach.

YOU don't get it.

and I have shown you time lines

You simply are stuck with the DLC talking points

Tell you what, I hope I am wrong

But when the Pubbies take the house, the senate and the WH in 2008

Don't cry...

You are helping to enable that

And that is a sad statement

The investigations are PART OF THE FUCKING PROCESS... and CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS HAVE ALSO SPOKEN OF THIS

You and NANCY PELOSI are on the wrong side of history

And there is nothing less than the damn republic at stake

Is this simple enough for you to understand

As to facts... tell me, you still think that the Irving Committee was not part of the process? If you do, you lack in your ability of historical analysis. Just because it is not listed in a document does not meant it was not... damn hsitorians... most see it as part of the process that led to the resignation of one Richard Milhaus Nixon

It was THAT PROCESS that got the votes that led to the house vote

But I am sure you will continue to make all kinds of specious charges trying to justify being on the wrong side of history... and you are

And when the Constitution is finally declared a quaint document, not longer applicable to the modern world, J'Accuse people like you, who put political expediency ahead of the Constitution in the midst of a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

was not an impeachment committee... it couldn't be. It was the SENATE.

The timelines you post only support MY position. They investigated first, THEN they started to move on impeachment.

I don't know if you ever took a history course, but let me try to explain this to you

The investigations led directly to the vote in the house

They were part of the process

I know it is complex, overtly complex for you

But if they did not do that, no bill, Nixon finishes his term

If you cannot get that, it's not my problem

What is sad is that we fundamentally agree, we need investigations'

Where we disagree is that I see ultimately impeachment and trial as their duty, you don't

And more fundamentally, the perceptin of them not doing a thing to rein in this white house already cost them, and it will cost them both house and senate

because you've proven yourself to be entirely ignorant in the subject.

The Senate Watergae committee was NOT an impeachment hearing. How many times do I have to tell you that? And Walter Mondale didn't run for PResident in 1988. Your history book is messed up.

You obviously have a burr under your saddle, and you are also not making sense. You are using hypotheticals that never took place and, therefore, are un-provable, providing you with safe haven, as there is no way to dispute your opinion.

go get it

He makes a very solid case of why impeachment should be done

Oh and his case goes all the way to the first impeachment cases in the XVI in the UK, over oh the Black Death

Go read the book

But the problem isn't republicans if you haven't figured that out by now. Evidently, despite our majority in the House, we don't have enough democrats that support impeachment.

Naturally, most of it was bullshit irrelevant to his function as head of state, but there was sure lots of it.

please show me what was uncovered during the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Bill Clinton. There was nothing new to come out by the time impeachment rolled around.

Naturally, most of it was bullshit irrelevant to his function as head of state, but there was sure lots of it.

did the House uncover during Clinton's impeachment?

I'll save you the time: NONE! The investigation was already done.

CONSTITUTION and whether or not our Democracy was safe from a DICTATOR!! This is an entirely different situation and much more serious.

These people MUST BE STOPPED.

but I'm arguing against the assertion that impeachment hearings uncovered evidence against Clinton. They didn't They didn't uncover anything againt Nixon, either.

Investigate first, THEN impeach.

number right now, but they have evidence and they aren't finished yet. By the time they file Impeachment charges, they WILL HAVE all the evidence they need. Right now, no evidence gets to the public because of the corporate owned media, but the media would have to cover an Impeachment Hearing. THEN, the people will know the truth. THEN they will demand the repukes Impeach.

Also, WE don't know all the evidence the Dems have gotten from their closed-door testimonies. I'm sure it's plenty. For instance, Comey knew about the secret spying program being run by the WH. He testified about it behind closed doors. That one has to be a killer. There's many, many more instances of testimony like Comey's.

When the Dems start Impeachment, they will have all the evidence they need to convict.

that's nuts.

Yesterday was a pretty productive day for gathering Impeachment evidence. IMCPO, eventually, they will have no choice but to Impeach. As soon as The psycho states PUBLICLY he forbids the DC US attorney, Taylor and the DOJ to move forward on the Contempt of Congress charges against Miers and Bolton, he will be impeached. THAT is an IMPEACHABLE offense and one Conyers has set up for the psycho.

All the other stuff was Whitewater related, and led to nothing.

All the Lewinsky stuff came out between January & August 1998. The "Blue Dress" was July. Starr submitted his report Sept 18 1998.

The impeachment process didn't even start until October 1998.

The House Judiciary Committee recommended a full impeachment inquiry on October 5 and the full House authorized it on October 8.

Nothing new came out and they didn't get around to actually impeaching him until December 19 - with bi-partisan support I might add.

As you can see the House Judiciary Committee didn't even recommended an impeachment inquiry until after extensive investigation was done and bi-partisan support was likely.


The bottom line is that they didn't impeach and then send Starr to investigate. They sent Starr to investigate and then based on the results of that investigation moved to impeach. That's how it's supposed to work.

The differences are irreconcilable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1410977&mesg_id=1425092">More. . .

Democrats can only do so much to remove this idiot without help from the right but they need to make the attempt none the less. There is a real possibility that the disaster in Iraq could become a lot worse in the not too distant future. If Turkey should invade northern Iraq things could get pretty dicey. We could also get hit by another major terrorist attack here at home. If the Democrats try to impeach the chimp and the Republican's block it, they will be the one's people see as responsible for this incompetent moron remaining in office and damaging the country.

The hearings will AIR ALL OF THE DIRTY LAUNDRY. John Dean spelled this out!

John Dean talked about US v. Nixon, which involved a special prosecutor, NOT a house committee.

An impeachment panel has no powers that a regular House investigatory committee has.

What would hapen if the '08 election is stolen and we lose power? Think it won't happen? Just look at 2000 , 2002 and 2004. If we lose power what will the Dems do? They broke laws and must face justice.

they get acquitted.

They get a pass. They walk away.

How does that help us?

THAT is what the repukes are afraid of! They KNOW what these thugs have done and are COVERING UP. Impeachment would NOT fail, IMCPO.

will not be able to ignore it. The public will be made aware of the exact nature and extent of WH corruption.

Republican Senators will look like they support a corrupt administration if they do not vote to impeach under these circumstances.

The result of this would probably be conviction on impeachment, or the Dems taking a filibuster proof majority in the Senate,as well as increasing their majority in the House.

And still will like to see it brought to the table even if it fails in the Senate.

I just wish the that the DEMS stared investigations as soon as they took control of Congress...build the case, show the evidence, then I think more people, here on DU and across the nation, would be more for the impeachment process.

I still hope the DEMS go ahead with the impeachment process but as each day goes on, I am wondering if too much time as passed now. By the time everything is all said and done, I think Bush may be out of office and by then, will it be too late? :shrug:

But impeach! Do it now!

i believe it was.

It would have been flat out wrong to apatheticly "let it slide"- THAT would have been much worse than his "not guilty" verdict.


Should we abandon our goals simply because we are clearly going to 'miss' some of them?