Rationalizing for Inaction on Impeachment

[Senator]

NOTE: It is not my intent to single this poster out personally. This OP is simply illustrative of pervasive attitudes many display.

One of the underlying problem of this post is a simple false presumption. There is no "prince charming" coming -- no cargo plane on the way. The reality is that we ARE "the system" the poster is relying on to "hang these bastards" somehow. Our public servants will only (possibly) provide what we demand of them. There is no substitute for our failure to make our demands as loud and clear as possible.

The same goes for the "huge outrage" many assume is just around the corner -- with just one more bit of information, once they learn the truth we all know. It's not coming. People are not that ignorant. They see the reality. But they also see the "leaders of the opposition" unwilling to actually DO SOMETHING about it. They see accomplices, not champions.

There is also a pervasive "shortage mentality." As if there's a clock ticking and we have to sneak all our agenda goodies through some closing window. As though there's some predetermined limit to political capital that must be spend before we're found out and chased away.

As to the specifics of impeachment, there is no "time issue," as the charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.

The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.

There is nothing to "investigate."

The articles of impeachment are already written. There is no hearing necessary. They can be brought up for vote on Jan 4th (though I'd prefer Jan 6th to commemorate the 2 Stolen Elections). Should they not resign and demand a Senate trial, it need not take more than a week. There are no "fact witnesses" required.

There's also no reason to think impeachment would effect '08 in a negative way. The neofascists forced a failed impeachment, over nothing, against the wishes of 70% of the nation from Dec '98 to Feb '99 and still "won" the White House in 2000. This one would likely garner 70% support and the display of backbone could swing as much as 10% of the white male vote to the Dems permanently, out of respect for the principled action (as opposed to decades of empty rhetoric).

And speaking of empty rhetoric, that's pretty much all "push out agenda" amounts to -- even with a shiny new non-veto-proof majority. Unless someone's come up with the magic potion to circumvent "rule by signing statement," what DC Dems are realistically looking at is 2 years of no tangible results and a further erosion of public trust in "both sides" due to the "tone in DC."

And they'd be right. Endless hearings with no real accountability or punishment imposed is pretty much the defintion of partisan hackery. It's a great way to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of beltway lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, and strategists. But it does very little for the millions who demanded change on Tuesday.

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[Botany]

1. Down Boy

When the truth comes out the repugs will lead the charge to save their skins.

[reichstag911]

2. Bravo, OP!!!

Unlike Botany in Reply #1, I'm not interested in waiting for the Repugs to "lead the charge to save their (own) skins." I'd rather we skin 'em ourselves. For those counseling others to subordinate their desire for impeachment to some other priority, I say the investigation/impeachment/indictment/imprisonment process is the greatest moral imperative this country has faced in a long time, maybe since the Civil War. We are a nation of laws to which everyone must be accountable, or no one.

[Botany]

7. I agree with everything you say but now is not the time.

Very shortly it will be and the media whores and republicans
who will have no choice but to go along with impeachment.

Remember that Sen Jay Rockefeller will now be in charge of
the committee that Pat Roberts chaired which has hide the
pre war intel that the White House had. Also Rockefeller was
opposed to the NSA spying and the bush's signing statements.

The best way to get to the goal of impeaching and removing
bush & Cheney is to cool the impeachment talk now. The #s
are still not w/ us. (need 2/3 of the senate)

[greenohio]

8. I agree.

Skin em.

[elocs]

62. Are you interested in respecting the decision of Speaker Pelosi?

Or is the idea to cut her off at the knees and make the first female Speaker and third in line to the Presidency look weak and ineffective? I trust her judgment more than the political armchair quarterbacks here, myself included. Impeachment will happen and I am willing to wait to have it done right. There are many virtues to being childlike, but impatience and wanting things right now are not virtues. Build the case with hearings and investigations and do it right.

[NMDemDist2]

3. this one is worth a K&N

:yourock:

[GOTV]

4. Any evidence for 70% public support?

You say "This one would likely garner 70% support"

Is that guess work or do you have data?

[Senator]

11. It's already at 51%

With active refusal by the LieberDem "leaders" among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy.

But have a look at this discussion of the current numbers.

--

[onenote]

25. those current numbers undermine your argument

they show that a substanial majority of the public think it would be a mistake to move as fast as you argue impeachment should move. In fact, not even 50% of Democrats think so, and the numbers show that a substantial number of independents aren't interested in impeachment as a 'top' priority. Your strategy would be political suicide for the Democrats according to the very poll you cite.

[Senator]

32. Only if you subscribe to a Self Defeating Prophesy

Those numbers exist with direct opposition from the DC Dem "leadership" -- in spite of them.

Leadership matters a great deal. But not if people are trained to see "political suicide" around every corner.

They might want to consider that continual silent complicity with crimes of this magnitude is just a slower form of suicide.

--

[onenote]

39. its hardly self-defeating to conduct hearings and build support

rather than leapfrog into a full-blown impeachment effort in the face of overwhelming opposition to that approach from the vast majority of independents and repubs and less than 50 percent support from Democrats

[Senator]

40. That's exactly what it is

Because outside the beltway and the world of political junkies conducting hearings and building support are nearly mutually exclusive endeavors.

You build/garner support by providing a clear path to achieve a stated goal. Not by sending the message that "we don't know where we're heading with this."

The electorate has just said "Do something about this man and his reckless, incompetent adventures!" and the DC Dems are fixing to dive right into shuffling papers.

It's not the fault of the left that the public has been trained to only notice bold moves and short time spans. But that is the lay of the land.

Perhaps if we get Kerry to explain to them why this has to be so lengthy, cautious, and complicated.

Think they'll listen?

==

[GOTV]

45. Impeachment - Acquital = Vindication, thus the goal is conviction

So let's stop pretending an impeachment alone gets us anything.

'The electorate has just said "Do something about this man and his reckless, incompetent adventures!"'

I can find dozens of explanations on the web about what the electorate just said but... I'm sure you're interpretation is the right one...

'You build/garner support by providing a clear path to achieve a stated goal. Not by sending the message that "we don't know where we're heading with this."'

Nancy Pelosi has layed out a clear agenda so don't worry. They're not sending that message.

"and the DC Dems are fixing to dive right into shuffling papers."

All legal operations in DC start and end with shuffling papers.

[Senator]

54. Impeachment is not a "legal operation"

And Pelosi's "clear agenda" says nothing about the war crimes and impeachable offenses. It is literally "looking the other way" like a corrupt cop.

And while I'm sorry you wouldn't be satisfied with "impeachment alone," I think the injection of some self-respect into the party and absolving the American People for the horrors that have been committed in their name is a pretty fair return for simply living up to the oath of office.

But who knows, maybe history will judge that hike in the minimum wage as far more important.

--

[AntiFascist]

50. I agree 100%...

of the remaining 49% many of the people are uneducated on the issues and have fallen under control by the MSM.

We need to bring the constitutional issues into the light and make the demands of the people known to Congress.

KO has done a great job in several of his commentaries, but we need more of this.

It must also be underlined that the issues at stake are way too important to brush aside. Dems might achieve a small short-term gain by trying to work with the President (or not!) but the long-term consequences to the nation are most certainly devastating.

[Senator]

57. A nit to pick on the "uneducated" public

I don't mean to be a pain, but this is a pet peeve of mine about folks on the left.

We have a natural tendency (in the reality/knowledge-based community) to think that "teaching" or "more information" is the way to win public support and/or solve problems. This really only works among ourselves.

The public's attention span has been so badly damaged that they are not receptive to this approach and interpret it as weak and boring. At the same time it's a mistake to think of them as "uninformed" as they've often got all the information they want and are able to get themselves fully informed in short order.

What we need to do is trust them more, and manipulate them less. Provide more leadership and less teaching.

--

[AntiFascist]

70. I understand and I do have faith that given enough time people will...

usually arrive at the truth. The main problem I see is with the media and how they have become so adept at shaping arguments. For example, the false dichotomy of pusing for immediate impeachment vs. pushing for investigations first is something they might use to create a wedge issue, but could ultimately delay the process until life returns to normal, and people begin to forget about much of the corruption issues. Investigations will be done, but the juicier aspects will get twisted and swept under the rug. Many in the traditional media despise the power of the internet because the power of the people in shaping arguments is beginning to be exercised here.

[Senator]

71. I agree about the internet

But there's really nothing much the Euphemedia can do. The internet has better product, so it will continue to build market share at their expense.

However, the dichotomy is real. Impeachment (even just calling for it) is an overt act, while open-ended investigation is a non-act. If that's the crutch they need, again I wouldn't worry about the public. It's kind of hard to "forget about" war crimes and spying without a warrant on the whole nation.

--

[GOTV]

26. That's a start, but not high enough....

... for successful conviction.

[ToolTex]

5. Oh yes, K & R!

n/t

[GOTV]

6. Which 67 Senators will convict?

And if we don't have 67 Senators how will you feel having handed Bush an Acquittal?

[Senator]

12. Those who take their oaths seriously

And possible lack of conviction/removal is not currently relevant. Should that occur, I for one would still be proud to have had my public servants do the right thing.

Failure to accuse, when warranted, really provides him his historical exoneration. Not to mention making those that remain derelict in the duty silent accomplices to his treason.

How does that feel?

--

[Barack_America]

14. I don't know, I think that failure to convict might be worse...

...Than failure to accuse. Especially considering that a failure to convict results in the waste of tax payer time, money and the chance to get things accomplished in Congress. I don't see the point in trying thse guys for screwing this country over just to have them acquited (which screws the county over a little more in the process).

I say you wait to impeach until you have a better probablility of conviction (say, when he is out of office).

[Old and In the Way]

17. How do you impeach when he's out of office?

nt Impeachment removes him from office...then you indict for the crimes he/they committed.

[Barack_America]

20. Impeachment CAN happen after someone leaves office...

It prevents them from ever holding public office again and strips them of their pensions and other benefits. They can also still be prosecuted after leaving office.

I don't think that you're going to find a lot of support in the American public for removing him from office, they like stability. But I think that you will find overwhelming support for preventing him from holding other office, etc. That support might just swing enough Senators over to give the 2/3 majority.

[Old and In the Way]

29. I've never heard of anyone impeached after they've left office.

indicted, yes, impeached, no. Maybe it's possible, but I don't know of any case where a President has run for another office, so in this context I guess it really doesn't apply.

"I don't think that you're going to find a lot of support in the American public for removing him from office, they like stability." Total conjecture on your part. While I've not seen a scientific poll, I'd guess that if the average voter was asked, "If the sitting President was found to have committed serious crimes which violated his Constitutional oath, would you want him impeached?"...I'd be willing to bet that a strong majority would say "yes". The unscientific MSNBC poll has 87% favoring impeachment (338,000 votes). I like stability, too...but a President who flagrantly disregards his oath and the Constitution is, by definition, unstable. He needs to be removed.

[Laelth]

46. Prosecuting after he leaves office is REALLY vindictive.

You must prosecute while he's still dangerous, or we will truly be acting like a lynch mob. Impeaching him (at least we have to ATTEMPT to convict him) while he's in office is merely using what power we have to protect the American people and the world from him. That seems sensible to me. If we fail to convict, at least we can tell the American people that we tried to see justice done. Then we hang complicity around the Senators who voted against conviction.

Impeachment NOW is a win-win, regardless of whether we convict. It's almost always a WIN-WIN in politics to do the right thing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Zensea]

37. Sorry, wrong, impeachment does not remove from office

"Impeachment occurs so rarely that the term is often misunderstood. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict."

wikipedia on impeachment

Remember, Bill Clinton was impeached.
"Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate."

[GOTV]

24. It would be much worse...

... especially if we could have been successful if we only laid our case out first and appeared not to be seeking impeachment.

If we simply investigate, and find enough stuff that we can convince the American people that the Bush administration is too dangerous to allow two more years of, they will demand their removal. Then Impeachment will appear to be doing the will of the people, and the Senators will be compelled to convict.

[GOTV]

21. It feels impotent

If we hand Bush an Acquittal we will look foolish. Anyone can make an accusation. If you can't follow through with conviction then Bush has been vindicated.

But, you say the 67 Senators will be "Those who take their oaths seriously". Can you name those Senators or not? Until you have your 67 you're just attempting to clear Bush of his crimes.

[Senator]

31. Doing nothing "clears" him

And I don't understand the argument that you only engage in battles that you know your going to win.

But what the Senate does is not relevant to the decision of House members to impeach. That's why the founders put the functions in the different bodies.

The House is the "police/prosecution" and the Senate "judge/jury."

A "law enforcement" official is not entitled to make "judicial" decisions.

--

[GOTV]

41. So you admit - we have no options...

... Doing nothing clears him, and Impeachment without conviction clears him.

Then what are we talking about? We have no viable options but steering public opinion right now.

[Senator]

42. Our option is to stop "steering public opinion"

And simply do the right thing (though the heavens fall).

Impeachment with conviction does not "clear" him. Do you think OJ lives the life of a "cleared" man?

But it's not him we need be concerned about. That's just a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

We have only ourselves, our forefathers, and our children to answer to.

How do think we're doing so far?

--

[GOTV]

44. Acting against public opinion means you lose

Impeachment without conviction cleared Clinton

"Do you think OJ lives the life of a "cleared" man?"

He is not in jail for murder so yes, he is living the life of a cleared man. People who have murdered and not been cleared go to jail. It's a very obvious difference.

Bush will also live the life of a cleared man if you will not settle down and do this right.


"How do think we're doing so far?"

We haven't even moved in yet.

[Senator]

55. Impeachment is not "against public opinion"

Only a minority opposes impeachment.

--

[Barack_America]

13. An excellent and often overlooked point!!...n/t

[Old and In the Way]

16. Which Senators want to go on record as allowing Constitutional crimes?

There are "0" Senators for impeachment now, because no articles of impeachment have been drawn. When that vote occurs, they will have to defend it. How many will vote to acquit a President who will have multiple articles drawn against him? This won't an impeachment based on consensual sex. This will be about the most fundamental crimes that someone can a President can be accused of.

If the actions of this administration don't justify an impeachment, what actions do?

[GOTV]

22. Most of the Republican Senators, plus Lieberman...

... will be happy to deny our claim that we've made a case for constitutional crimes.

Until you have your list of 67 you are only vindicating Bush.

Until you have your 67 you are inviting Bush to strut in front of the American people waving his acquittal as proof of the legality of his actions.

Until you have 67 on board, Impeachment = Acquittal = Vindication = we look like assholes

[loyalsister]

27. Don't forget Lieberman's pals.....

It is now cool to be "independent minded" and there are some Democratic senators who are well aware of the fact that they may keep thier seats longer if they can endure partisan swings by being "independent."
We can't expect dems to stick together.
Jim Jeffords voted against the Clinton impeachment and we applauded him.
We should remember this recent history.

[Old and In the Way]

30. Will they deny the facts?

If Articles of Impeachment are voted out of the Judiciary Committee, there will be a legitimate, bi-partisan basis to conduct an Impeachment trial. If sitting Senators review the evidence against Bush and choose to give him a pass, the voters can decide if that Senator should be re-elected. I really don't care if he is found guilty or not...it is a political trial. If the Senators wish to debase their institution by casting their vote based on Party politics rather than the facts, it is their reputation and conscience that they have to live with. What will be important is that we investigated and found a legitimate basis to initiate an impeachment proceeding against him.

What will most assuredly vindicate Bush is, if he is not held accountable for the actions of his administration. Future Presidents will know that lying about a causus belli, breaking the law by spying on Americans without warrant, ignoring warnings of impending attacks that kill 3000 Americans, bankrupting our Treasury, and playing guitar while an American city drowns are non-impeachable offenses. We will have allowed him to create a precedent for future Presidents to do the same or worse. When history looks back at these 8 years, it will note not only the awful things that were done by Bush, but it will also have much to say about the Congress and the American people who allowed it to occur without holding him accountable. We will rightfully be labeled as enablers who chose to look the other way while he committed these crimes. History will consider us assholes for not reining in this dictator.

[GOTV]

43. Yes, they will deny the facts...

... and concentrate on political survival instead. Come on, are you new?

"What will most assuredly vindicate Bush is, if he is not held accountable for the actions of his administration."

He says he's innocent, we say he is not. Some Americans agree with him and some agree with us.

Right now it's a difference of opinion.

If you Impeach without first rounding up your 67 Senators he will be acquitted and it will no longer be a matter of opinion. It will be established fact - he has been acquitted - he is innocent.

This is just like Iraq. Too many people with too much passion to do things right. They want to rush in before we've planned all the way to completion and they're going to throw it all away.

You want impeachment? Do the public relations that will get enough of the people on your side to force half of the remaining GOP Senators (and remember, all the GOP moderates lost) to support conviction. The Senators will act on their political survival.

Otherwise, you'll have an vindicated GOP on your hands.

If you insist on rushing to impeachment, he will walk, he will not be reined in and, as you say, history will consider you an asshole for not reining him in.

[Old and In the Way]

65. My comments went over your head.

Thanks for your concern. Much better to not look like an asshole than to support justice. I'm sure Karl Rove agrees with your assessment.

[blm]

9. Here's the case for the opening the books - a long OVERDUE opening of the books.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2690322

[niallmac]

10. I don't know what the hell to think but I K and R. Good post. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

15. I take your point, but respectfully disagree ...

It's just MHO, but I would rather pursue investigations into ALL crimes by this president and his enabling administration - we all KNOW what such investigations will uncover.

The Dems took impeachment "off the table" during this election cycle. A smart move, as it would have cost them votes otherwise. To go back on that now would mean (a) they are liars (just like the people they recplaced), and (b) it would be perceived as pay-back for Clinton as opposed to justice being done.

BOTH of those things could hurt us badly in 2008. Being called liars who immediately went back on their word, and vengeance-seekers who wanted to avenge Clinton - those are two weapons I would not readily put into the hands of the GOP spinmeisters to be used against us later.

Let the uncovering of the crime and corruption of the Idiot be thorough and complete - then let impeachment be the will of the People, which overrides any 'promises' the Democrats have made about that option being off the table.

I want impeachment as much as everyone else - it should and MUST be done. But it must be pursued with patience and thoroughness BEFORE the fact, not after. Let's lead with evidence proven to be undeniable, with all of the attendant underpinnings of facts firmly in place.

Although I may disagree with the OP, I am still giving this a Recommend - it's a very touchy topic, which deserves discussion based on all points of view.

[Senator]

34. We need more disrespectable disagreement ... : )

So let me begin...

It was dumb not to campaign on impeachment. People were voting against bush not for dems. They could have surfed that wave instead of simply being washed up over the line by it. More importantly, they could have made impeachment a principled stand, instead of leaving themselves open to "partisan" charges.

Also, "investigation" is wrong because there is nothing to uncover. They make their claim of Urinary Authoritarian Executive** power right out in the open. The war crimes are not only public and continuing, but have already been adjudicated in Hamdan - Geneva has applied since the start.

We already have the "undeniable" evidence. And this for the much lower threshold of simply broaching the subject -- making the accusation.

These underlying realities makes the comfortable path of "open-ended" hearings a substantially masturbatory affair. It also sends the counter-productive message that we don't "have the goods." As usual, the reflex is to operate from a position of weakness.

And the obsession with '08 is a strictly beltway affair. It's a political lifetime away, even for the segment of the electorate that wouldn't take an impeachment in stride. Sooner is less damaging than later on that front too.

But none of this PR/electoro-strategery gymnastics stands up to the moral imperative, to the oath-bound duty to defend the Constitution. That frame for acting will inure to our benefit for generations, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

---
** based on the newly-dicovered inherent (i.e., faith-based) constitutional authority to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

[puebloknot]

38. Disagree, but greatly...

...enjoy your writings. You really know how to hit a nail on the head. I concur with those who say you should hire yourself out as a political speechwriter (if you have such a wish). Maybe you do already!

I just want to say that I feel we must not assume that all impeachments are created equal, or that the public will see it that way. Evolved citizens were disgusted with the charade that the Clinton impeachment represented. Holding this administration accountable through impeachment would, I feel, be seen as something distinct from partisan revenge. I think that *all* crimes could be brought to light through the process of impeachment, which serves to expose them. If the Senate won't prosecute, there are still other options, and it forces the members of the Senate to make a public choice.

All roads lead to Rome. Nixon never made it to impeachment, but knowing it was coming cleaned house. He and his whole gang were ousted, and many went to jail -- as you doubtlessly know.

I think Nancy Pelosi was quite presumptious to announce that impeachment was off the table, partly for the reason you've stated. Should it come up again (even though it may be through public demand), she's left the party open to just such accusations of lying.

When I support impeachment, I should probably make it very clear that I don't support impeaching Bush alone. The whole gang needs to go. And I agree with Senator that openly supporting impeachment would likely have played well with the group that put us back in power.

It's a risky business to decide to stand on principle, rather than having a finger in the political winds all the time, waiting to "Viva" until the other guy does so first. But I think it's what the country is hungry for -- at least those citizens who were not star players in "Jesus Camp." I digress, but I went to see that film tonight, and it was a whole different experience than it would have been two weeks ago! :)

There's an old cliche that "science changes, funeral by funeral." Ideologies are likewise slow to die, and some we've been dealing with are perhaps more in the category of "the Undead" (they come back), but hope is in the wind.

Judy Barrett

[AntiFascist]

51. I see this playing out differently...

Pelosi et. al. are not going to change their position for two months, I'm pretty confident of that. In the meantime, the constitutional issues need to be brought out into the open and there needs to be a groundswell of support for impeachment at the grassroots level. Anything less would be sweeping it under the rug and brushing it aside.

If representatives are called upon to demand impeachment then this will not be seen as "payback for Clinton" but instead as a demand that justice be done.

[NanceGreggs]

53. Exactly my point!

By saying impeachment was off the table going into this election, the Dems assured those who voted for them that this would NOT be their number one priority in office.

However, when the groundswell builds for impeachment - as I am certain it will as investigations go forward -- the Democrats will NOT be seen as pursuing a vengeful vendetta, but as acquiescing to the overwhelming will of the citizenry.

[sampsonblk]

18. Yep, what you said - K & R

nt

[puebloknot]

19. Flowers at your feet!

Thanks you so much for this very intelligent post. We who are insisting on impeachment are *not* deluded purists, and we are *not* lost in revenge fantasies.

If there is anything that this country is starved for it's truth, integrity, a willingness to stand on principle and damn the hiding behind "bipartisan" niceties. I fully believe that the *best* way to stay in power in 2008 is to show some moral, ethical leadership right now!

I would like to live in a world where every point of view had equal validity, where every philosophical/religious stance could be equally honored. In their pure essence, perhaps all religions and spiritual paths *can* be so honored, but we are dealing with fanatics and criminals who are cynically using religion and fear tactics to sway the gullible masses. It turns out, though, that the masses are perhaps not as gullible as we thought. Tuesday's election strengthens that idea.

People are looking for leadership they can trust. Nancy Pelosi has already demonstrated to me, in the strongest terms (and not just based on her "off the table" comments), that she plans to go along to get along with the Bush Administration. The next two years are important in all our lives, and the quality of those years should not be shunted aside because the Democrats are already deep into the 2008 campaign.

I think my experience is common to all of us: I have lived with deep, deep anxiety, anger, and sometimes hopelessness as I saw my country descend into fascism over the last six years. And make no mistake about it, this is *not* "fascism lite." The protocol is in place to begin the same kinds of terror tactics that were practiced in Germany in the '30s. I'm a middle class white woman, living in Santa Fe. They haven't knocked on my door yet. We know absolutely, though, that they've rounded up people based on the fact that they had suspicious Middle Eastern names or facial features. And we *know* that they've tortured those people. There are whisperings that the concentration camps are already built. Maybe that's just paranoia. But we *know* that we've lost habeas corpus.

We have all breathed a sigh of relief because of Tuesday's election results, and people all over the world are celebrating with us. But we need to take the next breath and move forward with what you have named our *only* moral, patriotic option -- impeachment!

Sincerely,

Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[Senator]

33. We're not without power yet

And I think it would help if you sent your post in to some newspapers as a letter to the editor.

It's a good way to turn up the volume.

--

[puebloknot]

36. I shall...

...do as you've suggested. My road out of despair is going to be LTTEs, my own blog, posts here, using my voice as much as I can from here on.

Thanks for weighing in and being supportive.

[mom cat]

23. Preach it! Out with the treasonous crooks, both Bush and Cheney!

[unkachuck]

28. let the....

....investigative facts determine if and when impeachment should occur....that being said, I would love to see impeachment AND a progressive leislative agenda, and I don't see why we counldn't do both simultaneously....

....as for bush and any potential veto, no problem....take a page from the repug play book inwhich for 15 years they've been attaching 'poison-pills' to every 'needed' piece of legislation....if bushco wants their war money they'll have to go along with some progressive treats for us....

....and I believe our VP once said something like, '...inflation doesn't matter...' and I have no reason to doubt him....time to run-up some red ink on new progressive legislation....

[MGD]

35. It isn't time to impeach him yet. Let's at least pass some legislation across his desk first.

Just to see what he does. If he continues to play dictator, immediately proceed with impeachment. That's my opinion.

[cali]

47. Academic.

It's not going to happen. You can't make it happen, thank god. Investigations are the way to go. Pelosi and Conyers know what they're doing, and I'm so puking sick of grand statements like "it is our ONLY , moral,patriotic option."

A lot of DUers are NOT reality based life forms.

[AntiFascist]

52. On the contrary people can make the process start to happen...

simply by contacting their own congresspeople. Right now we are being told to kowtow to the leadership which is wise and all-knowing. In many cases, people have stood up to this and their wisdom has held out.

[gully]

48. What about the fact that Cheney would be President?

What about presenting the case to the American people without investigations? What about the fact that as Pelosi puts it "Impeachment is to narrow" as the entire Republican Party is corrupt?

Pelosi has decided to widen the net and impeachment, she feels is focused on to few Republicans. I can respect several view points on this.

[Senator]

58. He wouldn't -- that's a canard

There's no practical way to separate their culpability and there's nothing to stop a double impeachment.

But impeaching both or cheney first is not really relevant to defending the Constitution.

Continuing to do nothing is just complicity.

--

[gully]

63. The constitution demands oversight

and we're about to have some.

[gulliver]

49. Hold your horses!

We have already had one party-line impeachment. That's one too many. Wait for the evidence. Then by all means impeach the little bastard.

I want the people overwhelmingly on our side first, and I even want a lot of Republicans. Dems need to be the party of results, the party of process, the party of national unity. There is no reason impeachment can't be done right by a government with responsible leaders. If there is hard, cold evidence for impeachment, then great. We win whether we impeach or not, whether the Republicans join us or not.

[Senator]

59. There's no evidence to "wait for"

They publicly defend their Urinary Authoritarian Executive** power. They claim the right to violate Geneva (commit war crimes) and spy on Americans without a warrant (criminal violation of FISA Act).

This "defense" has even already been judged. GOP Senator Specter (Judiciary Chairman) has scoffed at their claim of a "blank check" on FISA warrants. GOP Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham stood against their attempt to "retroactively legalize" their war crimes. The US Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdam that Geneva has always applied (i.e., there have been 3 years of war crimes committed).

There really is nothing to find out. No need to investigate.

Either the DC Dems in the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy grow a spine or the neofascists get away with oommitting these atrocities in our name. And consequently our once-great nation remains Torturers 'R Us to the world and more hated than the Nazis were.

It's really just that simple.

---
** based on the newly-dicovered inherent (i.e., faith-based) constitutional authority to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

[cleveramerican]

56. You could not be more wrong

the vast majority of the public wants action that will affect them positively. More investigations and sub-comitee hearings will just confirm for us all that our goverment has completely stopped representing the desires of the citizenry in favor of more inside the beltway, meaningless bullshit.

I would urge you to go back and look at what those new 18 or so democratic legislators ran on, and won on. You won't find a mention of impeachment. We should listen more and talk less.

[Senator]

61. I agree on "investigations"

If you look at my post above (#59) you'll see that agree with you on the "meaningless bullshit."

But the citizenry does want impeachment. Only 44% oppose it. While the "inside the beltway" crowd wants to make it all about Iraq, the polling shows that people voted against a cluster of things bush has done (i.e., his abuse of power).

We only need to lead more and cower less.

--

[NotGivingUp]

60. WE WANT IMPEACHMENT!!!

[rinsd]

64. "The articles of impeachment are already written."

"There is no hearing necessary. They can be brought up for vote on Jan 4th (though I'd prefer Jan 6th to commemorate the 2 Stolen Elections). Should they not resign and demand a Senate trial, it need not take more than a week. There are no "fact witnesses" required."

And in the reality based world the Democrats would get crucified for filing articles of impeachment based on internet/partisan "investigations".

Without Congressional hearings or a special prosecutor, impeachment is not happening.

[Zhade]

66. Allowing criminals to get away with their crimes is hardly democratic.

It's certainly not brave, or intelligent, or worthy of anything but contempt.

[Eugene]

67. Impeachment vs. inaction is a false choice.

Investigate. Make a case that will plausibly convince Republican Senators
that Bush must go. Unless you have a real chance of persuading 67 Senators
to convict, impeachment becomes an empty gesture at best and a partisan
witch hunt at worst.

Prosecutors go to trial when they believe they can prove their case to a jury
and win a conviction. Is there smoking gun evidence in hand to prove the case
for impeachment conclusively? That's what it took to bring Nixon down.
That's what was lacking in Iran-Contra.

The first job for Congress is to rein in Bush and start cleaning up the mess
he and his fellow Republicans made over the past 6 years. Congress has other
powers besides impeachment to keep the administration in check, especially
the power to investigate the Iraq fiasco for real this time.

It's good be ready in case a Prince Charming comes along, but don't count on it.

[Senator]

72. No, there is "smoking gun evidence"

From the original post:

...the charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.

The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.

There is nothing to "investigate."

GOP Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham have already stood up against the "torture law" they rammed through pre-election, that violated Geneva and is most accurately called "The War Criminals Protection Act."

They failed to get their "enabling act" on spying through and now want the lame duck session to pass it.

They're not hiding anything. They're just playing word games by claiming "inherent power" and that they're "only improving Geneva."

This emperor really is without clothes.

==

[laugle]

68. I just heard this morning on talk radio that 2/3 of the

country is not for impeachment at this time........best to investigate first and get the country on board!

The truth will be coming out and the people will decide the penalty!

[calimary]

69. Spot on! It is Job One.

For your consideration, here's my take on it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964978&mesg_id=2964978