Democrat or Republican, if you don't understand why holding people accountable to THE LAW, *especially* when they are holding high office, is important, I consider you to be part of the problem.

Any fool who doesn't understand that IMPEACHMENT is the only thing that is going to heal the divide in this country is obviously not looking out for the best interests of this country, but instead, is busy looking out for their OWN.

End Rant.

:rant:

We need congress to act to protect the Constitution of the United States, not to stall for political gain.

Or course, I think it is easier to defund the Iraq war then to impeach Bush or Cheney and congress is not even capable of doing it.

You can certainly do both --

All Speaker Pelosi has to do is NOT bring the president's funding bills to the floor --
that's it ---

Only guarantee sufficient funds to bring the troops home immediately --

EXACTLY.

EXACTLY.

if that bill is the subject of a discharge petition that gets 218 signagures. Which it will so long as there are at least 16 Democrats that don't support a complete, immediate cut off funding. Which there are.

Sorry, but all the "funding options" are simply illusions.

When they simply start funding illegally (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/21/ww.armsrace/">which they've already started btw) then what?

You can't expect criminals to start acting like non-criminals. They never have before.

It's time for everyone to stop being "Anti-War" and start being "Pro-Impeachment."

No, you can't ride two horses with the same behind.

---

if they could even find a way to pass a binding (law) resolution instead of a non-binding one. If that's all they can do I can get friends of mine to do the same for free. They all, beginning with Nancy, need to be fired.

:hi:

does a failed impeachment heal anything?

Sorry, but it's just a childish temper-tantrum to demand an impeachment that has no chance of success.

When you accuse * of torture, the answer will be "Not Guilty"

When you accuse * of lying us into war, the answer will be "Not Guilty"

When you accuse * of war crimes, the answer will be "Not Guilty"


"Not Guilty" is not the message I want to send

and even if the impossible happened, we have President Cheney. That doesn't help us, either.

When you accuse Cheney of torture, the answer will be "Not Guilty"

When you accuse Cheney of lying us into war, the answer will be "Not Guilty"

When you accuse Cheney of war crimes, the answer will be "Not Guilty"


"Not Guilty" is not the message I want to send

impeachment would make Bush look innocent?

Because * will not be removed from office because repukes will not vote for impeachment. A failed impeachment means, by definition "Not Guilty"

Nothing prevents them from being impeached AFTER they leave office. Even more important, nothing proects them from criminal charges

I'm sticking my neck out here because I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that an impeachment trial is the legal equivalent of a criminal trial and therefor it would not be double jeopardy to file charges. Failed criminal charges certainly won't protect a defendant from civil liability over the same set of events.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

he wasn't guilty of lying in the charges against him.

And calling somebody a freeper because they can count to 67 is just dumb.

Thanks

Now deny the obvious implication

are YOU calling ME a freeper????

I got the denial I was looking for

I think someone has two browsers and two user names going on here...

Just a hunch...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Right now, Cheney, the true architect is running things from behind a cloak of invisibility. If he becomes the President in fact, he will have more lights shining on him than he has ever had in his roachlike life.

Go directly to the cancer. Remove it from the body. We can live with gee-dumbya until 2008. We cannot live with darth cheney and has delusions of grandeur.

If you disagree, please identify the 67 votes

The truth is, there wasn't enough evidence to force a recount in Ohio in 2004

this opportunity to learn what impeachment means while there are people talking about it. I take that back, as not relevant right now.

I obviously know more about it than you do. In another post you said impeachment gives congress subpeona powers. That's not true

There is no amount of evidence that would convince Republicans to vote for impeaching Bush. It's a purely political calculation.

Impeachment would establish one party's devotion to the rule of law, regardless of the outcome. It would put everyone on record; it would give everyone the opportunity to state once and for all whether their loyalty is to the Constitution, or a political party.

More than that, it would set a good precedent by reinforcing the idea of Congressional oversight. It would be a statement that the President is not above the law, no matter how the vote came out.

and vehemently.

Failing to convict in the Senate would NOT demonstrate anything other than that Bush was exonerated.

I've no doubt that the right-wing would push just the narrative you describe, and probably even sell it in the short term. However, I think an attempt at impeachment would be good for both the Democratic Party and the country, in the long term.

Failure to impeach is not the same as exoneration. Impeachment is not a part of the criminal justice system, it is a check against executive abuse and overreach. If the pair of them have committed other criminal offences they are still liable to such authorities. HOWEVER very few former presidents have EVER been convicted of ANYTHING after leaving office, no matter how criminal their behavoir.


If you are talking about the court of public opinion then this argument still fails. Failing to call Bush on his criminal offences legitimizes his unconstitutional actions in a way that even an unsuccesful impeachment trial couldn't. Better to attempt, to indicate what he has done wrong, if there isn't adequate evidence on this then so be it. If we do not stand now and bring this out then what will the next Bush-like president attempt?

Or are you so convinced that the DLC, moderate, safe, spineless Rahm-like Democrats will win the White House forever?

"Failure to impeach is not the same as exoneration"

IMO, that's how the media will spin it, and how the public will interpret it.

"Failing to call Bush on his criminal offences legitimizes his unconstitutional actions in a way that even an unsuccesful impeachment trial couldn't. Better to attempt, to indicate what he has done wrong, if there isn't adequate evidence on this then so be it."

I disagree, based on what I said above. IMO, a failed impeachment would be a political disaster for the dems. And as far as indicating what has been done wrong, all of that info is already out there. It is no secret that * has been spying on us, torturing prisoners, locking them up without charges and without trial, etc

A: your first argument is based on a passive approach to the media. When you say that the media 'will spin it that way' you really ought to say Fox news will spin it that way. If you are going to limit your behavoirs and actions to minimize spin from right wing pundits then you will have very little that you can do.

Really it is a strategy of defeat.

B: Your argument fails here too. Of course we all know and have the information available. Books are written, bloggers become incensed, but how do you take it to the next level? how do you put it all out like a buffet before the American people that don't have cable or ready access to the Internet?

You still haven't explained how a failed impeachment is bad for the democrats. I think it attaches congressional republicans to Bush primary to election season. Let them defend him and themselves at the same time. See what they choose. I really don't think you will excite the electorate by sitting back and letting the repukes play it quiet. Playing it quiet does nothing but benefit them. Why do you think they are killing and fillibustering everything that they can? It keeps the lines from being drawn and it keeps them free-er of Bush association.

CNN disparaged Gore's Nobel. CNN is pushing the story about how the Dems are making people who go to NASCAR get immunized. All of the media is owned by a few mega-corps.

B: How does impeachment take it to the next level if the media portrays this as simply a political tactic on the part of the dems? Every report will support that claim of partisanship by reporting on the "party line votes" for impeachment.

A successful impeachment would be a total disaster for the repuke party, just as it was when Nixon resigned. For that reason, and that reason alone, the repukes would never vote for impeachment.

And I don't understand your argument about filibustering. If anything, filibusters usually make the lines more clear.

A: You make my argument for me. If it does not matter what we do, if we will get bashed by CNN anyhow, then where is the loss? And how is sitting back and hiding NOT a loser tactic? Do you like the Democratic party to look weak and submissive in the public eye?

Honestly I don't think you understand the media or the spin cycle very well. It is about focus and control. As long as Bush and Cheney are the focus the crimes are what gets reported on. It really is as simple as that. The media likes a fight and they will want to report about what the fight is about. The best the Repukes will have is 'The democrats are playing politics.' And that will not play well next to lies, torture, ignoring treaties, hanging the poor out to dry in Katrina, and troop killing-contract corruption.

Also if you are so concerned about the media, why don't I see your name on the threads that go after Bush's FCC and the monopolization of the media.

B: You still have yet to explain how a majority of the American people that favor impeachment are suddenly going to decide they like Bush. You also have yet to explain how the republicans could be MORE partisan.

In terms of press-

A fillibuster is percieved as an arcane procedural act that gets little press (unless democrats threaten to do it and republicans threaten to respond with a Nuclear option.) If you doubt this I challenge you to tell me how many fillibusters have occurred since the democrats took power (Without looking it up). Opposing one does not seem to grant ANY public attention for the Democratic party and I don't know what idiotic consultant ever told a lawmaker that this is enough.

A Bill or amendment is actually news and DOES get a bit of time in the light.

The evidence is there but the Republicans don't really believe in the rule of law unless it has to do with blow jobs so they won't vote appropriately no matter how much evidence we have and we do have it.

The investigations are discovery; discovery leads to votes.

To get to the truth. No one knows how a person will vote after evidence is presented. Do you really believe that there is no way the House can show guilt? If so, why? Is bush/cheney not guilty? Many of us have read evidence that has convinced us of guilt. There has never been an investigation by an independent panel, only bushies investigating bushies.

than enough evidence to convict Cheney. Anyone who says otherwise is sticking their head in the sand.

Please tell me how we get to 67 votes?

Get this and get this well. Bush and Cheney could eat a live baby on TV and there are Rethugs who would still refuse to vote impeachment. Hell, Bush could let a whole city drown and have it all recorded and there are Rethugs who would still refuse to vote impeachment. We could have the documents in hand that show that Bush and Cheney not only signed off on torture but used to get tapes of the torture and wank off to them in the oval office and.......................I think you can fill in the fucking blanks.

Don't be obtuse. We will never get the fucking Rethugs to follow the rule of law. They are lawless. That doesn't relieve our side of their Constitutional duty!! That Constitutional duty is not absolved if the outcome would not be a win! So get it out of your head that the only time to impeach is when you have the votes a priori, that's not only stupid, it's wrong, constitutionally wrong!

So why are some on this thread arguing that the repukes will vote for impeachment once the facts come out?

"That doesn't relieve our side of their Constitutional duty!! "

There is no constitutional duty to impeach.

I don't care what the end point of the process is, I want 24/7 coverage of the proceedings and I want every last little impeachable offense to be discussed ad nauseaum on TV and in every newspaper in this country.

There damn well should be a constitutional duty to impeach when it is obvious that the fascists have taken over.

unfortunately, reality intervened

"There damn well should be a constitutional duty to impeach when it is obvious that the fascists have taken over. "

But there isn't such a constitutional duty

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

no content

Let the chips fall where they may. Are we supposed to once again fall like a sick chicken? Make the media do their job. It's pretty hard to ignore impeachment hearings.

Article II section 4

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html

Can you read? It says "shall be removed from office" not "shall be impeached"

and actually, if you read the transcript of the discussion the founding fathers had about it (it's listed right below the statute at the link) Impeachment is the only thing that will get a pres. out of office.

Unless there another way only you know about? :shrug:

the Congress took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. NOT to impeach is an abridgement of that oath. Plain.and.simple.truth.

And after the investigation, and the findings were published, two things would be true.

1. There would be hell to pay for the puggies who did not vote to impeach. It might even send them the way of the Whigs. The 30% support for the pres would go to 15% or lower. And a lot more incumbents would feel the urge to spend more time with their families.

2. The next congress, and POTUS would be Dem, by a landslide that boggles the mind.

3. America might regain just a tiny shred of the international good will we had after 911. And that would be a good thing, considering our currency is about to get repatriated in a big way by the rest of the petroleum producing and consuming world.

Thank you tavalon I haven't been able to say it better.

Do you have a crystal ball -- ???

Some people think that skipping the investigations and going right to impeachment is somehow going to result in the discovery of wrongdoing. It won't. Impeachment is not an investigatory process.

You investigate . . . then you impeach if the evidence is there ---

HEARINGS . . . do you recall hearings on Watergate -- ???

the house authorizes HEARINGS (investigatory process). The Judiciary Committee does the investigation and then recommends impeachment, if warranted. The investigations would be aired on every network, all day every day. This is an opportunity to expose ALL the criminality of this administration...air the dirty laundry in front of the world.

After that, the people would demand impeachment, and those voting against it, or voting against removing criminals from office do so at the risk of their jobs.

The House Judiciary committee that considers impeachment does have subpeona power and does do things like take testimony, etc. However, if I understand it correctly, they only investigate the charges that are the basis for the impeachment and the testimony they take is from those they have already interviewed, unless info revealed at the hearing demonstrates the need for testimony from a witness who has yet to be questioned or the existence of evidence that has yet to be examined. IIRC, this is how the Nixon tapes were revealed. As a result of testimony in the House committee that indicated Nixon had taped meetings.

IOW, while there may be some investigatory work there (when new evidence is discovered as part of the hearing) the purpose of the HEARING is much like that of a trial - to examine the evidence that has ALREADY been collected, and not to discover the facts. IOW, it is not an investigatory process. A criminal trial is NOT an investigatory process. It is a HEARING, where the evidence from both sides is meant to be HEARD (ie presented) by a judge and a jury.

The hearings in the Judiciary is akin to the District Attorney, investigating, collecting evidence, putting together a case to present to the grand jury, which in this case is the House of Representatives.

The House listens to the evidence and decides if a case can be made, and either indicts (impeaches) or refuses to indict. If there is a majority vote in the HOUSE, then the subject of the hearings has been impeached.

If impeached, then the trial takes place in the senate (they are the jury of peers).

There is value in indicting (impeaching) a person who is obviously guilty, even if, in the end, you get a hung jury.

"there aren't enough votes" concept. Let's explain it.

with the view from under the sand. It's of no significance to me.

The "there are enough votes" is speculation, based on ignorance of the process.

The repukes just voted against SCHIP. They voted and supported everything */Cheney did. People know that they lied us into war, that they torture, that they messed up the war and they still won't support impeachment.

* has a 28% approval rating and they still stand by him. What makes you think these repukes will change?

Give me one good reason why they would change their minds about impeachment? You're not going to convince anyone by insulting them. An actual argument, at least has a chance.

to convince you of anything. None.

And I'm sure you'll do a much better job persuading repukes

because it's their duty

You own the error.

You've retreated

I'm having a giggle reading your posts. It appears that, rather than standing near what you've said, you've stepped in it.

If you want to think your insults are anything but a retreat, go for it

I'm talking to you.

I'm impressed

Don't let it get you down.

WE DON'T FUCKING NEED REPUBLICAN VOTES TO IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!

Bill Clinton was acquitted. He was still impeached. Impeached does not equal removal from office....that takes a conviction in the Senate.

Impeachment is equal to indictment....not conviction.

you've had a busy, busy 5 days.

Republicans will run as far as they can from Bush, once you get the truth out in the open.

And the repukes still won't vote for impeachment

The fact that you say that there's plenty of evidence shows that the facts are out.

you say. which means that there will not be any meaningful dialog that anyone can learn from. So good luck to you.

I don't think a deck of cards will get them impeached

about those who aren't playing with a dull deck.

:RLOL:

I like this

where are the numbers?

when thousands dying hasn't

Yep, someone's playing with a dull deck

I don't see how that matters. Let them vote for their 24% approval president. The important thing is see that total inaction doesn't allow *s lawlessness to become precedent.

all the crap he's pulled. What are grounds for impeachment if not massive deception of the people and the complete destruction of our Constitution? If we do not impeach bush/cheney, et.al., there will never again be any reason strong enough for impeachment. This is not about winning! It's about saving our republic and our rule of law.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

hundred

Forgive me DU

:-)

If they do not vote in favor of impeachment then those republicans will be painted broadly and succesfully with the Bush-Brush and, outside of the reddest of red districts in red states, they will lose.

The majority of American people are in favor of impeachment. When his crimes are put back up as articles of impeachment again then the American people will associate anyone opposing those articles with the crimes.

If you are stating that there are members of Congress who don't put their DUTY to this country above their political party affiliation, then I WANT THEM TO PUBLICLY DEMONSTRATE IT SO THEY CAN BE EVISCERATED BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS WHEN ITS SHOWN ON BROADCAST TELEVISION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

The fact the Democrats seem to hire incompetent Public Relations People is *NOT* an excuse to fail in one's duty to the Constitution and the People of this Country.

I spit on your cowardice. Patooey!!! Then I give you an 11% approval rating -- oh, wait! That's what the rest of the country has already done!!!

"If you are stating that there are members of Congress who don't put their DUTY to this country above their political party affiliation, then I WANT THEM TO PUBLICLY DEMONSTRATE IT SO THEY CAN BE EVISCERATED BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS WHEN ITS SHOWN ON BROADCAST TELEVISION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN"

THE repukes HAVE PUT PARTISANSHIP OVER THEIR DUTY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER

And the media ignores it.

Show me the votes

It's the principle of it. Someone has to stand up for the rule of law in this country or we're in a deep pile of shit.

What guarantees do you have that the a Dem administration would persue impeachment after they're out of office?

NONE... unless we elect Dennis Kucinich

Did Bill Clinton persue investigations of Poppy Bush after his term when there were clear criminal offenses committed by him and his administration??

Quit being a hack...

How does exhonoration for *'s crimes strengthen the rule of law?

"What guarantees do you have that the a Dem administration would persue impeachment after they're out of office?

NONE... unless we elect Dennis Kucinich

Did Bill Clinton persue investigations of Poppy Bush after his term when there were clear criminal offenses committed by him and his administration??"

There are no garauntees in life. If you want a garauntee, buy a toaster

Impeachment is a civil trial. There isn't a guilty or a not guilty verdict, as in a criminal trial.

What's important is that this type of presidency be held accountable; that Congress make a stand on behalf of the people, the country, & the Constitution.

For those who are afraid that there will be a backlash of support for the underdog (the boy king) if impeachment proceedings were called, I do believe the American people are smart enough (at least 70% of us) to recognize that this administration's egregious conduct is altogether different from that of Bill Clinton's. Show them the facts & I believe there will be an outpouring of demands that both Republicans & Democrats vote to impeach this monster (& his puppetmaster, since all the roads of Corruptville lead to him).

Impeachment on principle is what I want. I want to know that when a monster is in the White House that we will be protected.

of course success or failure needs to be considered.

It's not like there are no consequences to failing. There are HUGE consequences. A symbolic, failed impeachment will hurt Dems badly.

Let me say again: Once impeachment proceedings begin and the evidence has been laid out, there would be unsurmountable public pressure put on both the Republicans and the Democrats to remove the boy king from the castle.

Impeachment of this thug most certainly is about principle. I'm appalled at what's been going on the past 7 years & I prefer that Congress to stand up for the people they represent & for the Constitution to which they took an oath to protect.

I realize that Democrats were given a majority because they were frustrated with having a free-reined petulant boy king in the White House. I have no doubt those same people are just as frustrated, if not more, that he hasn't been held accountable.

HUGE consequences. I laugh.

like "sticking one's nose in the sand"

"Let me say again: Once impeachment proceedings begin and the evidence has been laid out, there would be unsurmountable public pressure put on both the Republicans and the Democrats to remove the boy king from the castle. "

Say it as many times as you like, but it's just not true. More than 80% of all americans oppose *'s veto of the SCHIP bill. Do you think the repukes care?

"HUGE consequences. I laugh."

Pretty childish

I'm guessing that you don't really think they're "Repukes" at all.

If the Repukes don't care, why are they afraid to answer questions directly & succinctly at all the hearings the Democrats are having to conduct to learn what's going on behind all the messes caused by the boy king? It's not that they don't care -- they're afraid of the consequences of discovery.

"If the Repukes don't care, why are they afraid to answer questions directly & succinctly at all the hearings the Democrats are having "

Because all of the info isn't out yet. *THAT'S* why we need INVESTIGATIONS, and not impeachment. Impeachment is not an investigatory process.

"We have to trust the pResident because we don't have the information that he has.

Would you care for the Incrediberry flavor or the Scary Blackberry?

but I think it's foolish to take a stand when you know you'll lose.

I understand the desire to impeach now. But doing so when you know you'll lose is just throwing a temper tantrum. That's not how politics works.

There ARE consequences to failure.

I want Bush impeached as much as you do. But I want it to succeed.

building without attempting to rescue their constituents who are trapped inside.

I think most Americans like heroic, against-the-odds stands.

What a childish thing to assume, that somehow you KNOW that a whole bunch of senators will commit suicide for these criminals.

Is Senator Larry Craig going to save Bush/Cheney from impeachment? Him and whose army?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You are in some kind of childish fantasy-land. These guys are felons and no one will take a bullet for them.

selling out your principles and the things which you hold most dear, then a stand MUST be taken. The lines have been drawn in this for many years.

I will NEVER stop fighting for the impeachment of corrupt politicians. My identity as an American Citizen depends on my willingness to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the founding document of our nation and lays out HOW IT SHOULD BE RUN. It tells us we must impeach.

I find the opening statements of the Declaration of Independence to be valid, even more than two hundred years later:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We are suffering a long train of abuses and usurpation. They are pursuing invariably the same object and have most definitely evinced several designs to reduce our rights. We are definitely headed for (or already at, depending on who you listen to) despotism. It is our RIGHT, our DUTY, to throw off such government and provide new guards for our future security.

Have you forgotten that? If our Representatives are not doing what they ought, we must push them, get the subject out there. Write LTTEs, DO STUFF to spread the truth.
I have been around DU a long time. I don't post much because I am busy doing other things. I take content from DU, research it, write about it, get it to the papers here and in some larger cities in my state. I am trying to move public opinion, motivate others to pressure their representatives. I know my reps are TIRED of hearing from me. Are yours tired of hearing from you? If enough people push them in the right direction, they will have to bow to OUR will. They are OUR representatives. If they do not express our voices, they need to be removed, and until then, reminded that they are NOT doing their job. The American People are tired of the abuse we are suffering under this pretender to a throne that does not exist. Instead of saying "we don't have the votes," go GET the votes. MAKE it succeed. You are an American. It is your DUTY to protect your nation, in whatever way you are able.

Is that not the very definition of pollitcally-expedient cowardice?

Many disagree with you that it will hurt them, anyway. Many think it will help, no matter the outcome.

Why do you expect repukes will do their duty?

will make THEM look bad. (29%, is it?)

That didn't make them look bad enough?

The diagnosed Schiavo by video and claimed the brain-dead woman was talking. They said "We were never "Stay the Course" ".

Do you still think they worry about looking bad?

No matter how low *'s #'s go, they will still support * because a successful impeachment would destroy the repuke party. There's no way they are going to go along with that

They are tanking. Voting to ignore the high crimes and misdemeanors will not help them.

A successful impeachment would destroy the republican party, just as it did after Nixon. It would take them a decade to recover. There's no way the repukes will vote for an impeachment that would be a certain disaster for them. They will chose the uncertain disaster of voting against impeachment over the certain disaster of impeachment

and there are consequences for failing to even TRY and do your duty! I prefer the consequences of a failed impeachment to what we are going to reap for not trying to impeach and remove this criminal from office. If we can't remove this president...we will NEVER be able to remove ANY president when need be.

but unlike you, I do not prefer the consequences of a failed impeachment. And I disagree with that final sentence. The problem is the current batch of radical repukes. Never in our history have we had a party as corrupt as they are.

and, yet, you are in favor of allowing that corruption to go unaccounted for.

"I WANT THEM TO PUBLICLY DEMONSTRATE IT SO THEY CAN BE EVISCERATED BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS WHEN ITS SHOWN ON BROADCAST TELEVISION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN"

That is EXACTLY what every member of Congress will have to do if we start impeachment proceedings NOW. They will have to weigh the evidence, then state on national television, in front of their constituents, whether they represent and support US, or their PARTY.

The ones who vote NOT to impeach can be voted out of office in the next election cycle. Impeachment is the tool to smoke the complicit snakes out of their holes and expose them.

They will not vote for impeachment.

You're talking about repukes who voted for torture, for war, against habeus, etc It's obvious they can't be shamed because they have no shame.

they KNEW it was a partisan witch hunt and that he lied about a PERSONAL matter.

I'd like to think that some of them DO have a little integrity and are more concerned with where our country is headed right now.

We'll never KNOW until we at least TRY, though.

You can't corrupt all of the people all of the time . . ..

Look it up because you're playing one and you're being seemingly obtuse about what we are saying here.

Anyone can claim "Straw Man"

and I can see I was hasty. I thought you were bringing up not having the votes as being the reason not to impeach when you were saying that we need to have more damning evidence before we impeach, which I also disagree with but it at least has some consistency with what is being discussed.

Now how about reading the PM I sent you about my being busy instead of being an asshole in public

but why October 12th 2007 instead of 2000, 2002, 2004 etc.?

Then again, I remember posting about 500 in a couple of weeks time once I got the fire in my belly so it isn't without precedent.

Welcome to DU.

It doesn't belong.

Why now? Because now I have the time. Do you want my mothers medical history? That will clear up all of your questions

I'll get it pulled.

because whatever fault you find with his post, it's not a straw man argument.

It cracks me up how everybody uses that term without understanding it. It's even funnier when they lecture somebody else on what it means.

When the poster says "Why don't you explain where the 67 votes are gonna come from?" the straw man is the implication that the other person is arguing that there WILL BE 67 votes for removal. That's a misrepresentation of an opponent's position (i.e. "straw man"), at least by implication.

It's VERY clear that such a retort is fallacious. Indeed, most proponents of impeachment assert very clearly that nobody can validly claim to know the prospective votes in an impeachment trial in advance of the trial itself. That's been stated repeatedly, yet seems to be ignored.

The simple claim (presented by those opposed to impachment) is "If the office holder isn't removed then impeachment charges aren't worth bringing." That claim is rejected by many on the basis of principle. Those who do not weigh the principles more greatly than some assessment of pragmatism, merely repeat their claim. Impasse.

Do you understand that? Impeachment is a matter of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Even the fox jumped up a few times before muttering "sour grapes." That people who pretend to be 'smart' enough to have, not only answers but a view-port into the future, don't comprehend the potentially enormous impact that a 'minority' position has as a precedent, and discard the possibly huge political price to be paid for either voting against impeachment or for acquittal once the charges and existing evidence is actually brought to the floor of the Congress ... and are willing, nay EAGER, to sweep this shit under the rug ... appalls me.

There is no higher priority, imho, than to assert the Rule of Law under the Constitution and force the issue on the floor of Congress. Avoiding it, based on some pretentious prognostication of outcome, is the kind of cowardice that will destroy the nation. Nauseating.

The old bump on a log stance doesn't cut it.

but from within

And this is essentially the process we are seeing in front of us

When principle becomes inconvenient and cowardly prognostication conjures up a Parade of Horribles to argue against action (Waah! Waah! I might fail!!), we have lost any moral right to self-governance. We again show ourselves to have become a nation of outlaws and cowards deserving of the condemnation of future generations, undeserving of self-governance.

:puke:

Either you believe in the Consitution enough to support and protect it, or you don't.

It undermines it

With your uncanny ability to foretell the future, I'd think you'd be at the track getting rich. :silly:







:rofl:

Just read the news

and failure of conscience ---

because without them, impeachment will fail.

You are trying to predict what they would do before investigations ---

Wake up

Liebermann has not opened that investigation ---

Andrew Johnson.

Oh, wait...

that the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

Smart guy, but today he'd be mocked. Of course, he'd still be right, and that is the point, really. Right versus safe. Franklin said something about that too, but that was so 18th C.

:yourock:

:blush:

You have excellent taste. :evilgrin:

:silly:

Cheney could run down Pennsylvania Avenue stark naked with a feather duster stuck up his ass, singing "Danny Boy", with a nude Vietnamese toddler under each arm and he wouldn't get impeached, unless there were enough votes to do so. Is it right? Well, of course not! Nobody who is trying to explain that fact has their head in the sand; it's realpolitik, and it's the way things work.

Do you realize that all this talk about insisting on impeachment and putting the Democratic, yes, leadership, on the spot and putting them in the "trick bag" is going to come back to haunt us after the first of the year?

What was the main purpose of Sherman's March? It was to destroy morale, to show the Southern population, hey, look at us, we're here and there ain't a goddamned thing your so-called army can do about it! Hey, where's your army, huh? Wow, we're sure scared of them. Gee.

The same thing is happening here. Just as the Confederate Army couldn't realistically save Atlanta, neither can the Congress realistically impeach anybody. The R Team has already started the strategy of mocking our side along the same lines, as in: "Hey, you libs, I thought you voted a Democratic Congress in to stop the war in Iraq and impeach Bush and Cheney. Well, they're still there, we're still in Iraq. Ha, you libs are so naive; you've been used by your own so-called leadership. We're here and there ain't a goddamned thing your so-called leaders can do about it. Why? Because they're the ones who lied to you, saying that they could do this and that."

From some of the posts, it would seem that the R Team got the ball rolling, and now we're hearing it from our own side.

A cynic (and that is what realpolitik requires) might add that our leadership doesn't want their hands tied by setting a precedent that may stymie their own policies later.

Would you want Secretary of State Kucinich impeached, or Secretary of Defense, Mrs. Clinton, impeached?

We've got a little over a month and a half to get behind the designated candidate, so let's be real and do that, or the R Team is going to take the White House again. The angst and outraged, unrealistic (given the political climate) demands for impeachment, no matter how justified they are (and we all agree that they are; nobody here is denying that) are counter productive.

Winning the White House isn't everything, it's the only thing. If we fragment now, if every silly insult sent by the political entertainers on the other side is guaranteed to generate liberal angst and shrill demands for retribution, we have already lost.

I, for one, am not going to let that happen! Come on, people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together!!!!

That's the thing people keep overlooking - there is no direct evidence yet linking Bush/Cheney to anything. Every single thing they have said or done they can claim was due to subordinates. So everything that people have against them, they can dodge.

bush and the system has broken the law. it's that simple and evident.
go about and know that some are above it, not like the rest of us.
you and I would be cooked and put into a prison labor factory if we held up a dunkin' donuts for 70 bucks, he is holding up the whole country.

Unfortunately, it requires 67 Senate votes to remove them from office.

and have to wait for those 67 senator votes.

yah, sure.

Impeachment in tried in the Senate where you need 67 votes.

are the perpetrators of said donut heist waiting for impeachment, or rule of law?

some pigs are more equal than other pigs. right. gotcha.

"some pigs are more equal than other pigs. right. gotcha."

The Constitution sets the rules for impeachment. It may not be fair, but it's the law. Criticizing the disparity will not get repukes to vote for impeachment

it's been a bit nibbled at, haven't you noticed?

want me to go dig it out so your friend (he is on my ignore list) can read it? I will have to link to a dictionary

Guess I have to go look for that again --

Someone else posted it . . . but we can on "suspicion" suspend the president --
and if we suspect that he and VP are conspiring, we can suspend both ---

I'll try to find the link later ---

Doesn't anyone here have a memory -- !!! ?????

could not support impeachment even if we had "enough votes"

The votes can't be counted until the evidence is presented, and according to Jon Conyers, there is *AMPLE* evidence to support Impeachment.

Are you implying that when presented with Evidence that Our Elected Representatives won't act according to their consciences? And if so, let *THAT* be broadcast all over the airwaves!!!

:mad:

And explain WHY they would vote to impeach?

to "un"secretize the gov't. It gets the facts out on the table. impeachment isn't a vote. Impeachment is a process.

you don't need to impeach to investigate and gather the evidence!

Investigate now! Then, when there's a reasonable chance of 17 Republican Senators voting to convict, impeach.

The notion that you can't investigate without impeaching is presented here daily, and truly baffles me.

happening. Under the process of impeachement, Bush can't stonewall the congress the way he is doing now. Bush ahs not let yet a single person from his "court" be sworn in to answer any questions. That all ends with impeachemnet. you get sworn testimony from all the key players.

an impeachment committee doesn't have any special powers that a regular investigatory committee doesn't have. I don't know where that notion comes from, but i see people here say it all the time.

have a place in the trial that is produced with the results of those investigations.

This Congress is just a big lie if it thinks it doesn't have the ability to produce evidence, move to impeachment, and convict numerous individuals, if not whole departments of criminal activity.

And impeachment doesn't reveal any facts. Investigations do

It is not a vote. It is the congressional solution to a bad president. It is what the constitution tells the congress to do in the case of a bad leader. Congress gets subpoena power, gets all those documents the government is hiding now. So, you're mistaken about what impeachment means.
That is on purpose. That information is spread to keep people from asking for the truth.

It is a political trial. Evidence is presented, but not discovered.

"It is the congressional solution to a bad president"

No, it's the constitution solution to a criminal president

"Congress gets subpoena power"

Congress already has subpoena power

So YOU are mistaken about what impeachment means.

guarantees it, but no they do not have it, and that, for one, is an impeachable offense!

which is how they have issued subpeonas

and dem led investigations have led to numerous resignations

Most of us are not. The WH is ignoring subpoenas right and left. laughing at congress.

Surprisingly, it's not all black and white

Subpeona?

the Attorney General firings. So too was Gonzales. They both declined to show up for their appointments and Congress..............................did nothing.

but they have yet to do anything

;-)

Having fun wiht the wall there?

I have upped my antidepressants so perhaps that's why.

Odd, another poster claimed Congress can't subpeona without impeaching.

That poster was claiming that the subpoena powers which Congress already has would have more teeth within the impeachment process, that the administration wouldn't be able to refuse to comply. I am unsure where the process would acquire its toothiness as Congress has shown itself to be pretty toothless thus far.

If they've already ignored subpeonas, why wouldn't they continue to ignore subpeonas?

I was just trying to clarify her point, I don't really agree with it. I think that subpoenas are complied with if the punishment for not complying is painful enough. Thus far, Congress has done a really shitty job at that. It isn't just the Bush administration I'm furious at.

The other poster claimed that Congress has to impeach in order to have the power to subpeona
I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle

The investigation has already been done. The evidence needs to be presented, and then acted upon.

There is *NO* EXCUSE ACCEPTABLE AT THIS POINT EXCEPT CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

Haven't you noticed?

The impeachment process itself would rid us of all that industrial grade, Unitary Executive, pixie dust that blankets all of Congress's inquiries...!!! Complete answers, and, true testimony would be forthcoming...!!!:kick:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

and let judgement begin.
howl it, scream it.

the silence is deadingly for so many.

Well said!

ON EDIT: And I expect *EVERY* member of Congress to abide by their oaths, and evaluate the EVIDENCE regardless of Party Affiliation, or I want *them* to be held accountable, too!!!

There is ample evidence that laws were broken. There is no evidence that * broke the law.

"And I expect *EVERY* member of Congress to abide by their oaths, "

You are very naive if you expect repukes to abide by their oaths.

And you are wrong about the evidence for impeachment. John Conyers has it -- I attended one of his town hall meetings, and he said so. Are you saying he is a liar?