Bushpeachment: When do you think it will start?

[Chicago1]

I coined a new phrase (bushpeachment). With the investigations not to far into the future, when do you think the hearings will start?


START THE REVOLUTION
START THE BUSHPEACHMENT

[Vorta]

1. I don't think it will. eom

[stevedeshazer]

2. Never.

Sorry to disappoint. Better to understand now...it won't ever happen.

[elocs]

13. I'm not sure "never", but welcome to planet Earth.

There are many here who apparently reside in Never-Neverland. They believe if they indignantly declare and demand that it MUST be done that it will. Who in the Democratic leadership in the House is calling for impeachment?

[Monkeyman]

3. We will see people go to jail

But Bush will walk away

[EST]

4. It will start when the investigations uncover something so

egregious that the public is shocked into demanding it.
It probably won't be the steady drip drip drip of discoveries, but one or two things that capture the imagination and horror.

Perhaps the Fitzgerald prosecutions. Had the admissions of guilt by the soldiers for the rape/murder of that fourteen year old, and the murder of her little sister and the rest of her family gotten wider coverage or different timing, that might have done it.

[DeeDeeNY]

5. Both president and vice would need to be impeached simultaneously

and I've been told by someone familiar with the law that this is an impossibility for many reasons.
But let the investigations begin and see where they take us.
Remember that the impeachment of Nixon took place not long after he won election as president in a landslide.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Yes, the serious action began in 1973; the October Massacre

was in 1973, nine months after he began his second term. That's one of the things that decreases the likelihood of an impeachment this time--we'd probably only shorten his reign by a few months--assuming the impeachment was successful. Also, I think the Nixon impeachment was made more palatable by the fact that Agnew was already gone, with bland Gerald Ford standing in line to become the caretaker.

[badgerpup]

8. OT...but

:hug:
...using the word 'reign' rather than 'rein'. :woohoo:
So many times I've seen 'to reign in'...when the context of the sentence indicates pulling the reins up on something to slow it down or make it stop...but the correct word is rein and not reign and it's making me CRAZY! :crazy:

I haven't harped on it, because I'm too much of a nitpicker as it is...but still;
THANKS! :toast:

[Jackpine Radical]

10. I used "reign" correctly.

As in to shorten the period in which he reigned, not to shorten the rein by which someone controlled him.

Please rein in your urge to "correct" the proper usage of "reign" by others.

[badgerpup]

19. If you would re-read my post...

I did NOT correct. I was applauding correct usage, because I appreciated it. :hi:

[elocs]

14. Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on his impeachment.

And what famous event preceded this? The Watergate hearings. What hearings are going on now? The answer: none. That won't exactly help move along any potential impeachment hearings.

[KaryninMiami]

6. The process is already underway but we all need to participate.

We need a huge, groundswell from the underground, demanding impeachment.

http://www.democrats.com/taxonomy/term/7929

[gulliver]

9. When the Republicans call for it.

I give that about a 50/50 chance at this point. That's assuming the oversight investigations turn up nothing, and the Republicans only have to face what's in front of all of our faces. Bush lost the Middle East to Islamism and set freedom marching double-time in retreat.

[CTyankee]

11. It will have to be a lollapalooza

The Republicans will have to feel that they have no choice to survive as a party if they don't get rid of Bush and Cheney. The question is, would they take that chance, knowing that it would result in a Democrat becoming President. Of course, they might feel that she wouldn't be able to make a success out of her presidency, which would lead them back to power. But I think she is playing her cards right at this point.

[arendt]

12. CHIMP-eachment is a better neologism...

Congenital Halfwit - impeachment.

arendt

[PassingFair]

15. Illegal Wiretapping Investigations

The public will DEMAND it when
they realize what has occurred.

IF they realize what has occurred.

Pelosi has said impeachment is "off the table".

It will be back "on the table" if an
investigation is launched vis a vis
the NSA/AT&T Wiretaps.

My blood pressure goes up JUST THINKING
ABOUT THE CRIMINALITY of their behavior!

[elocs]

16. "Why Impeachment, Sadly, is a Nonstarter"

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/111506LASKIN.shtml

"Elizabeth Holtzman was on “Democracy Now” the other day. She is an eloquent advocate of impeachment. But in answering one of Amy Goodman's questions, Holtzman ironically gave the most convincing argument against impeachment. Amy asked her about the possibility of impeaching Cheney as well as Bush. Holtzman replied that that would be much more difficult, because as Vice President, Cheney has in all probability created little or no paper trail of having committed an impeachable offense. After all, it was Bush that signed the wiretap order, the torture statute, etc.

If Holtzman is correct, what is the point of impeaching Bush if we wind up with Cheney? At the very least, it would likely take longer to paper a case against Cheney than it would Bush. And that brings me to the second point why impeachment is probably not doable--there are only two years left to this Administration. As 2008 is a Presidential election year, realistically there is only one year for the impeachment process to work itself through; nothing controversial happens in Congress in a Presidential election year. It took over two years from the Watergate break-in to Nixon's resignation at a time when the Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) were open to the possibility of impeachment. Now, we'd be starting from scratch in convincing a reluctant Congress to act.

But the most compelling reason why double impeachment is not realistic lies in the fact that, given the order of Presidential succession, an attempt at a double impeachment would be perceived--and spun--as a Democratic attempt to seize the White House without an election. I find myself particularly sensitive to Nancy Pelosi’s dilemma. Because she is next in line for the Presidency after Cheney, Pelosi really cannot lead, or even be seen to support, a movement to impeach Bush and Cheney. It has been twelve years since the Democrats controlled the Congress and Pelosi will be the first female Speaker ever; all eyes are on her as to how she will act. The moment she signs on to an impeachment drive, her credibility takes a big hit because of her perceived naked self-interest. This will become the issue instead of Bush's crimes. She will not risk her political reputation and Democratic gains after so many years of being in the political wilderness for an impeachment drive that would be over politically the moment she signed on to it.

-------------------------snip--------------------------

This time, just replacing Bush with Cheney accomplishes nothing. But seeking to replace both opens the Democrats up to charges that they would be attempting a coup d’état. We will have to look elsewhere for justice, such as the criminal case just filed in Germany by the Center for Constitutional Rights. And the judgment of history."

None of this, absolutely none of this, matters to the math-challenged Impeachment Now crowd.

[beaconess]

17. Excellent post

:applause:

[leftofthedial]

18. never

[beth9999]

20. Not soon enough.