Will there be impeachment proceedings if both Houses are taken?

[SeaNap05]

Pelosy, as House Speaker, said she won't pursue impeachment, but if both Houses are won by the Democrats it opens up a nasty window. I haven't been here in awhile and was wondering what the DU voices think. I've been too busy watching CNN report on the Republicans that are dropping like flies. I'm sure there is more to come. .

[robinlynne]

1. Let's be quiet about it till it's time...

[EST]

2. One has to keep in mind two things.

Words mean things and Pelosi is a consummate politician. She chose her words very carefully.
She said she would not pursue impeachment but that there would be investigations.

That tells me she is not going to immediately start agitating for impeachment, but, should the investigations turn up misdeeds, there will be consequences.

It might actually be a good thing that * remain in office for a bit, given that if he were out of the way the pressure to uncover the truths we seek would be relieved.

There must be an accounting and bush must be where we can find him quickly and easily.

[Crabby Appleton]

20. keep another thing in mind

it takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict.

[TheDebbieDee]

3. Will there be impeachment proceedings??????

God, I hope so! I've got my "M", picture of a peach, "W" ready to go into the back window of my car!

[Greeby]

4. Conyers and the other "basement Democrats" have never needed

leadership's consent to do the work they do, I doubt they'd start now

[TygrBright]

5. Realistically? Probably not.

There is not yet a large enough national consensus in favor of impeachment and the logistics would be formidable. Congressional leadership will do a cost/benefit analysis and my bet is they'll decide to spend their still-limited political capital on investigations to shine the light on the sleaze and see it that consensus grows, as well as some substantive legislation rolling back the worst of the GOPpie nightmare.

The assessment at this point (and I think there is some accuracy to it, though not as much as the "centrist" pundits credit) is that in many cases a vote for a Dem is not so much a vote FOR the Dem, as AGAINST the GOPpie. IOW, we have not so much won hearts and minds as the GOPpies have lost them. Dem leadership is likely to tread carefully while exposing the worst GOPpie predations and building up a more solid base of support.

I think blivet and his co-conspirators will do a perp walk someday, but not necessarily soon.

ambivalently,
Bright

[MiniMe]

6. When the investigation finds how corrupt this admin is, I predict....

that Bush will pull a Nixon and resign and get pardoned, just so everything doesn't come out in public.

[bluestateguy]

7. Even if we had a majority, I'd say no

I think impeachment should be on the table, but only if we capture both houses, and that is not yet a given. Otherwise it's just a waste of time. But even if we have a congressional majority to get an official impeachment inquiry and hearings, the likelihood of getting 218 votes in the House would be slim, given the number of DINO Democrats who would turn tail and not have the balls to do it. It would never reach the Senate.

[Vexatious Ape]

8. sounds grim

but you're probably right. The Dino's will be listening to the mainstream/corporate media telling everyone how much an impeachment would tear the country up. And get scared.

[Eurobabe]

10. Country's already torn up, can't go much lower

I think most sane people want to remove the Bu$h cabal. No use impeaching and having Crashcart as prez.

[Chomskyite]

9. Nope.

We'd need 2/3 of the Senate if impeachment were to be more than a waste of time. The signing statements alone would be grounds.

And this current Democratic leadership was unwilling to filibuster or even summon five votes in the Senate against the torture bill.

Having control of Congress is itself a kind of impeachment, too.

[maseman]

25. No way

Don't let Shrub off the hook. Keep him in there and don't let him do anything. Let them self destruct. It will increase our chances in 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Gawd, I hope so.

There will be oversight, oversight will include investigations, and investigations can only lead to incredibly deep shit for BushCo and the once Republican Congress.

Ixnay on the impeachment talk. The GOP is dying to use that as a campaign slogan to rally their base.

Patience.

[snowbear]

12. Uh....

Psssttt.. Seanap... ... It's PELOSI, not "Pelosy".

What the hell is a "nasty window"?

Is losing GOP power a concern for you?

[AtomicKitten]

13. "nasty window"

[snowbear]

15. LOL !!!

[sendero]

21. Nothing ...

... nasty about that!

[TheBaldyMan]

14. There are some very important things that need to be done as well as

impeachment proceedings. There has not been a single oversight hearing into the conduct of the war in Iraq, nor the one in Afghanistan.

In WWII there were numerous oversight committees on every aspect of the war from Pearl Harbour onwards. This process continued throughout the war while it was being fought.

The Republican controlled congress has avoided any hard questions being asked about profiteering and the conduct of the war by the simple expedient of not having any hearings at all.

This will not benefit the Republican party and they will try to dress any hearings as a partisan witchhunt. If congress supports the troops, as they never tire of telling the rest of us, this must be one of the top priorities of a Democratic-controlled legislature. Soldiers are dying because of profiteering and no-bid contracts, it is a urgent matter and one that will not go away.

The USA must have a congress that will be willing to hold this administration to account.

Of course, if they manage to find time for W's impeachment(and Rummy, and Cheney etc.) so much the better. :D

edited for spelling

[snowbear]

16. Hey Baldy Man..

Ever hear of the term "nasty window" in the UK?

Guess I'd better check with someone on the other side of the pond in case I'm missing something.


SeaNap has his/her profile all locked up tight, so I dunno what the deal is..

I haven't been to the UK, but I asked a guy over there about the goalie our hockey team had sent their ice hockey team, and he responded with "Well, he's a bit of a sticky wicket"

http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif Say what?

I never did figure out what he meant.. and now SeaNap has me stumped on this "nasty window" crap.

[TheBaldyMan]

17. Hiya, I think SN05's talking about a window of opportunity.

but I'm not really sure. :shrug:

btw 'a sticky wicket' is a cricketing term, I'm scottish so I'm afraid I couldn't go into technical details. You'ld have to ask an Englishman.

[snowbear]

18. Hmmmm..

Maybe he was saying he should be playing cricket instead of hockey?

for the info!

[NOLADEM]

19. No.

There are going to be Dems in tight districts who will not vote for impeachment.

Folks, impeachment could cost us bigtime, with very little payoff. It could cost us 2008.

Most of the public has blood on their hands. The Iraq war had almost 70% approval at the beginning.

Most importantly, many Dems won't vote for impeachment because it would lead to the Cheney/Hastert presidency, which is actually worse than what we have now. Cheney is far more diabolical and heartless.

Forget about impeachment. Just get our country back. When we get power back, send em to the Hague after they are out of office. Doing anything before would actually make things worse.

[sendero]

22. I pretty much agree..

... first of all, impeachment is for piddly stuff like lying about a blow job. Impeachment is too good for Bush**, it would accomplish nothing in terms of running the country (would still be Cheney and Rove) and would energize the "persecution complex" pseudo-Christian "base".

[zulchzulu]

23. No! We have other issues to work on first!

Kidding...

Never show your cards at a casino and never show your plans before a war...

[Poppyseedman]

24. Cheney as POTUS ?

Bush goes down to impeachment, that's where we will be.