The Final Word on Impeachment?

[Barack_America]

...for now, at least?

It's official, John Conyers (D,MI) who will head the House Judiciary Committee, says that impeachment is "off the table". He does, however, plan to investigate the Bush administration and will advocate election reform.

In the impeachment process, the House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to bring a formal impeachment query to a House vote and conducts investigations if the query is approved. Therefore, the position of the House Judiciary Committee Chair is a very important part of this process.

Link:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061110/NEWS06/611100333



edited for clarity

[robbedvoter]

1. There can't be any "final" word before investigations.

Only in Alice in Wonderland the verdict came first. Ah, and also in Bushworld.(Abu Grahib?)

[nam78_two]

2. Well said/nt

[OneBlueSky]

4. O/T . . . thanks for that Factory Farming link . . .

wasn't aware of that site, and it reflects my own thoughts on factory farms . . . thanks again . . .

[nam78_two]

7. You are very welcome

:) :toast:

[knight_of_the_star]

3. As it should be

That gives Conyers much more leeway in his investigations. It doesn't look like he is digging for evidence or starting a witch-hunt the way the Bushies would have. Instead it looks like he's trying to find the source of the rot.

[RestoreGore]

5. No, not the final word. Not even close. n/t

[longship]

6. Plus, consider the time element.

It took 20 months for Congress to investigate Nixon and vote on articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee. The House Judiciary Committee was acting on sweeping public support for impeachment. From the time they convened for the impeachment inquiry in Feb, 1974 it was six months when they finished, approving three articles of impeachment. However, Congressional hearings on Watergate leading up to this, took another year. The result of all this deliberation was success--Nixon resigned in the face of crumbling support for him in the House and Senate. Done correctly, with public support, impeachment is still a messy and time-consuming business.

The entire Clinton investigation, which was on a political and ideological fast-track took less time. The Repuke mistake was to go forward without public support. This resulted in the huge waste of time of a Senate trial where the result was never in doubt--Clinton was going to prevail.

We cannot afford to take 20 months on impeaching the ChimpCo people, so if it is to happen, we'd better damned well have all our ducks in line, and we'd better damned well have public support. Right now, thanks to the rubber-stamp 109th Congress, we would have to start from scratch in January. Also, the public is not yet with us.

Public opinion could change through publicity as the various investigations pan out. However, it is very unlikely that we could turn public opinion quickly without some kind of revelation which could turn public opinion. In the Watergate affair, the "Saturday Night Massacre" turned the tide on impeachment. However, that took place a full 10 months into the investigation.

The bottom line here is that impeachment takes time if it's done correctly. We do not want, and cannot afford, another Clinton impeachment which was a political and ideological rush to judgement based on trumped-up, shoddy evidence. If we do this, we want it to stick.

In fourteen months, the 2008 Presidential Campaign begins to gear up. I do not think we want to be messing with impeachment during 2008 for that reason. So we only have 12 months. Historically, that isn't enough time.

Maybe Dems best tact is to forget impeachment. Instead, we can keep ChimpCo tied up with investigations. Then, immediately after Al Gore is sworn in as President in January, 2009, we can frog-march ChimpCo out of the White House and throw them on the mercy of the courts, the same courts which they spent the past six years demonizing.

[Barack_America]

9. Perhaps the most logical post I've heard on this issue!

Even more logical than my own! ;-)

I guess it goes without saying that I agree entirely!

How do you feel about the impeachment after leaving office option?

[longship]

11. I've seen that argument.

I think that it's wrong. The purpose of impeachment is removal from office. Once the person is out of office, impeachment would be moot, unnecessary, and probably not legal.

[Barack_America]

12. No. It is possible.

This from wikipedia:

It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.)


Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[longship]

15. Okay. I didn't realize this.

I don't think that many will see it that way. I do not see how Democrats will be successful in selling such a thing to the public, at least not for Dubya or Cheney, who likely would not run for office again anyway.

However, there are probably several ChimpCo people who might qualify for such treatment. Condi comes to mind.

But the next question is important.
Should Democrats start an impeachment process that many will see as being moot?

Won't we take a big hit if we tread down that path?

Would it be worth it?

I cannot answer those questions at this time and I do not think anybody else can either.

What is the best thing to do *now*? (or in January)

I think one could make an excellent case to keep impeachment off the table until investigations reveal facts to the public. Then, let the public decide on the proper course. That's what happened for Watergate, and I think it is the only reasonable path to take at this time.

[Barack_America]

17. Americans like stability...

They like vegeance, but they like stability more. I actually think that there would be MORE support for impeachment once it no longer means removal of a sitting President.

It doesn't just prevent them from seeking office again, it takes away their pension too? Might it also take away their Secret Service protection and the construction of a second Bush Presidential library? I don't know, but it would be sweeeeet if it did!

Let the call come from the people. That means beginning well-focused investigations (no witchhunts). Let the movement gather steam from the will of the people, not hot air coming from Washington.

That's my opinion (and it looks like we agree! :-) )

[brentspeak]

8. On an unrelated note -- I didn't know John Conyers was 77-years-old

How cow. He looks 10 years younger.

[Barack_America]

10. He's been fighting too hard to take the time to age!

As a Michigander, I love Conyers (perhaps not as much as I love Levin though).

Don't get me wrong, Conyers would looooooovvvve to impeach Bush (as would most of us), he just realizes that it's not a practical course of action at this time.

[yojon]

13. Now if they time the investigations so that the results

are available in .. say .. summer 2008, I wonder what effect that would have on the 2008 elections??

[Barack_America]

14. a MUCH more positive effect than say, would...

a failed impeachment attempt ending in the summer of 2008.

[wndycty]

16. Very good point. . .

. . .they might uncover so much shit that they Republicans will be wishing that Bush was impeached.

[Larry Allen]

18. you can't take treason off the table

but history may record that you tried. The purpose of so many house investigations is simply to get the raw truth out there. Let the chips fall where they may.