ONE simple reason that impeachment is a dead-end option

[Zomby Woof]

You cannot remove the president without a 2/3 voting majority in the Senate. That's 67 senators, folks.

I do not understand why there is impeachment talk when this obvious Constitutional fact makes it clear that it would not achieve the desired result with only a simple majority. Wait, I DO understand... there is pent-up need for vengeance on that asshole after fucking us terribly these past 6 years.

Still, as nice as the fantasy is, the reality is that we have MUCH more to gain by moving forward with legislation to right the wrongs of the past 6 years. Minimum wage hikes, repealing the top-tier tax cuts, stopping job bleeding, addressing IRAQ, healthcare, etc.

Sure, we can have hearings. We can press them on the criminal acts.

But impeachment is a time and media-consuming exercise, with results that will ultimately inhibit our goals, not enhance them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. The House impeaches, not the Senate

Read your constitution. :hi:

[havocmom]

3. no conviction in senate yet

numbers not there

[Zomby Woof]

13. I loved the condescension

I never, never post blindly about the document I can quote Article, Section, or Amendment like fundies quote the Bible book, chapter, and verse. :D

[havocmom]

28. ZW, On phone RIGHT NOW with daugher in AZ

She loves your posts

[Zomby Woof]

30. Thank her for me!

:blush: and :hi: to havocdaughter!

[bkcc]

6. The House impeaches. However....

the Senate then votes to confirm. That's why Clinton wasn't thrown out of office after the Republican House impeached him: not enough votes in the Senate to seal the deal.

[shadowknows69]

23. But the criminal should have it on his record

Thrown out or not he needs to be put in his historical place. Before we're all dead as GW would say.

[Zomby Woof]

8. But the SENATE votes to CONVICT and REMOVE

I know the Constitution better than 99% of DU.

So why even bother to bring the articles of impeachment up in the House with only a simple majority in the Senate?

The Republicans knew that they couldn't remove Clinton, but they went ahead out of spite, and with hopes of 'damaging' him. It didn't work. We would be wise to heed that lesson.

It's just a jack-off fantasy that Bush can or will be impeached. I would rather we dwell on a PRO-ACTIVE agenda of helping people with jobs, healthcare, and stopping the war.

[tnlurker]

24. The hope would be

The hope would be that once the damaging evidence was out form the house impeachment proceedings that enough Senators would see the light and do what is right for the county and not just vote for their party. If the impeachment proceedings were reported on by the media in a truthful way then Bush's approval ratings would be about 15 to 25%. That would force a lot of Republican Senators to think long and hard about voting to acquit.

[longship]

36. It's Simple.

First, the situation isn't static. You can't say that the Senate won't convict. The political dynamic might be very different by the time that the whole process of hearings, investigations, and impeachment takes place.

Second, there *will* be investigations. Certainly you are not suggesting that the House Judiciary Committee should stonewall things if they expose impeachable offenses, are you? That, in itself, would be a violation of the members' oaths of office.

Investigations are inevitable. The members should do them with great seriousness and with deliberance. If the Judiciary committee sees a likelihood of violations of the Constitution by this administration, it is their duty to take the investigation to the next level. That could mean impeachment.

What's important here is that there is a Constitutional process that Congress must not be impeded in taking, if it finds that it is warranted. Quashing an impeachment for strictly political reasons would be just as egregious as impeaching somebody for strictly political reasons. Neither should be allowed to happen.

Myself, I do not have an opinion on impeachment. I'll let our Congress critters decide that. We *must* first let them hold hearings and make investigations.

[marions ghost]

47. seems to me

the problem is...if you can't use impeachment against Bushco, when can you use it? If impeachment is useless as a defense against grave abuses of power, then we need to institute some other mechanism. The worse possible message is that, oh well, we don't have the votes, so we're powerless to police our own government and must always suffer under them no matter what they do.

I see it as our responsibility to hold them accountable.

[AngryAmish]

62. I really doubt you know more about the Constitution than me

For example, the 29th Amendment allows people the right to waterski drunk on the 4th of July. Betcha didn't know that!

[berni_mccoy]

10. And the Senate Convicts, only with a 2/3 majority

Without a conviction, it will be a bad move politically to impeach Bush. It would be a waste of time when there is so much more to do. Besides, it's good to keep him in charge as a political punching bag until 2008. The Congress will nail him as a roadblock to progress and will help insure a Democratic victory in 08.

Believe me, I WANT an impeachment, but I'll settle for an indictment after he's out of office and a trip to the Hague to stand trial for War Crimes.

I've been a proponent of Impeachment for a long, long time here (check my impeachment posts in the past). But I truly believe letting him flap around in the wind while we push initiative after initiative through is going to be the best bet.

I DO BELIEVE that there SHOULD BE INVESTIGATIONS and I CAN NOT WAIT TO SEE BUSH TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS. That WILL very likely happen.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Senate holds the hearings, tho, right?

[cyberpj]

2. At the very least, it's a disgrace. At most, it will support spcl. prosecutor and expose info. nt

[gfnrob]

4. You can "Impeach" with a simple house majority.

But yes, "removal" is harder.

[Selatius]

7. You shouldn't impeach if you can't remove.

It's better to prosecute him after he leaves office through the court system. He loses diplomatic immunity afterward. If the Hague asks the US to extradite him, I saw the US gov't should then do it like any wanted murderer hiding in the US.

[porphyrian]

5. Impeachment is a Constitutional imperative. We have to do it.

That doesn't mean we can't build a case for it before we officially file. Look it up.

[DinahMoeHum]

9. The House CAN bring up articles of impeachment. However.

to confirm and convict, you need 67 Senate votes.

Sorry, but 51 is not 67.

:evilfrown:

[moc]

11. The focus should be on INVESTIGATIONS, not impeachment.

Don't put the cart before the horse. Now that we have subpoena power, it's time to shine a light on the whole dark mess. Then, we follow it where it leads. If it leads to impeachment, we'll have two-thirds support in the Senate because the evidence would be that damning.

[Vorta]

12. IS impeachment ever good for the country?

I would love to see * not only impeached, but retired to a humble existence in Montana where he would relearn American values and primitive farming techniques. Unfortunately, it may be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[951-Riverside]

17. Yes. nt

[951-Riverside]

14. There will be no impeachment because Bush is pretty much invincible

Sure his party is going down in flames but he on the other hand is still standing strong. :puke: Its amazing that a retarded man can yield so much power.

[aquart]

27. Keep him on to kill his party.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for someone who rubberstamps Caligula Jr. If George keeps going, you really won't have to worry about that 2/3 majority. The Republicans knifed Nixon, not the Dems.

[H2O Man]

15. That assumes that

Bush is the logical target of impeachment. An investigation of the lies that brought the country to war might well lead to the OVP. I think that VP Cheney is unpopular across the board these days.

"Don't aim for the puppet; go for the puppeteer." -- Malcolm X

[TahitiNut]

42. Yep. Just like it was Agnew before Nixon, it's Cheney before Bush.

While the underlying specificas are different, it's clear that Cheney is Criminal #1.

[H2O Man]

55. Correct.

It's interesting to note that those who advocate that democrats just forget about investigating the criminal behaviors of this administration choose to ignore the reality that the US Constitution grants the Congress the right -- and, indeed, the responsibility -- to impeach individuals other than the president.

[Mr_Spock]

16. House impeaches, Senate convicts - if you remember BillC's BS

Anyway, we should keep our crippled lame ducks around to play with :D

[Zomby Woof]

26. It's Clinton's impeachment that prompted this thread

The Republicans KNEW they didn't have the Senate votes to remove him, but they vainly hoped it would damage his standing and political capital. It was vengeance for Watergate.

It backfired for them and it would do the same for us.

Articles of impeachment in the House sounds nice and wonderful and all that happy horseshit, but without the Senate to back up removal, why bother, truly?

[Mr_Spock]

31. I totally agree

We need him as a lame duck and we DO NOT want to raise his standing by appearing VENGEFUL and making him into a MARTYR!

I'm with ya here.

[misternormal]

35. I completely agree with you, as much as I'd like to see it happen...

This is not a criminal trial, as much as we might like it to be so... We can not choose those that would decide his fate in government, and the likelihood of his being removed from office is virtually nil.

The right would martyr him if he were impeached, and harass the left for the same thing they did to Clinton.

I say give the shrub enough rope, under Democratic scrutiny of course, and he will quickly reach the end of it. * has proved time and time again that he will not follow the advice of anyone with whom he does not agree, so he will soon leave his privates hanging in the wind.

Have faith folks, it worked for this election. Don't let the win this time go to our heads.

[elmerdem]

57. I believe the repugs

did it for purely political motives or to damage Clinton's reputation as you point out. We need to separate the offenses being impeached. Bill Clinton lied about having sex. George possibly/probably lied to instigate a war and hundreds of thousands of lives were/are being lost. There is in my opinion a major difference as to the severity of these impeachable offenses.

I think that we need to separate mentally the very different circumstances for possible impeachment.

[William769]

There may not be impeacment

But there damn well better be investigations to show the crooks for what they are!

[Greyhound]

19. It is the investigation and exposure that are so important.

If there is full exposure of the blatant criminality of this administration in a public forum, and it turns out to be as egregious as we know it to be, there are quite a few re:puke:s that will vote in favor of conviction, simply to be a viable candidate in th future. Nobody is going to want to be saddled with a vote in favor of retaining the cabal, when the depths of their corruption is exposed.

Once again, it is the Democrats to to win or lose.

[TahitiNut]

20. I just love defeatism.

Why bother to do the right thing if one's Crystal Ball says the outcome isn't perfect?

After all, the Crystal Ball says that no matter how damning the evidence, no Republican would EVER vote for removal ... not Snowe, not Spector, none of them. Uh-huh. Riiight.

:puke:

[H2O Man]

21. Well said.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedStateShame]

22. Need two-thirds? Wasn't there talk of a...what was it...

Nuclear option to bypass a two-thirds majority not that long ago? Maybe we should remind people of that.

[badgerpup]

25. Given a choice between a domestic or an international perp walk...

I'll vote for the international. It will not only be so much BIGGER, it will restore a lot of our street cred with the rest of the world.
Nothing says we can't have the documentation ready to go however...

[Kansas Wyatt]

32. Investigations still need to be made and all those involved....

With BushCo's corruption and crimes still need to be exposed and prosecuted. So none of these parasites can take another position in government, just to do it all over again.

[Gregorian]

33. But it can force resignations.

It may be that the international community is less likely to investigate, unless impeachment is under way. And we can always start knocking them off without conviction.

And positive Congressional actions would be preferred. But it may be that impeachment serves a larger purpose.

Good post! I forgot about the 2/3rds Senate vote.

[Catherine Vincent]

34. Yes, that is true.

It's too bad those rabid rethuglicans in the house back in the 90's didn't realize that. Oh wait, they did but they just didn't give a shit. :mad:

[Marr]

37. Let the House do some investigations, and we'll see if that 2/3 majority

in the Senate is willing to vote for impeachment.

After 6 years of government run like a criminal enterprise, there's going to be some serious stink coming out of these invstigations for a long time to come. And the public seems to be anxious to smell it.

Let's do investigations and see what the political landscape looks like at that point.

[Catherine Vincent]

38. Yeah, I go for investigation Bush/Cheney

Maybe we can get the both of them to RESIGN! :evilgrin:

[moc]

40. I agree with this.

[nini]

51. There will be investigations .. no doubt

the issue is do we get so focused on revenge we spend more time on that than solving problems.

[zyguh]

39. Impeachment HAS to happen

President Bush has violated the the Geneva Conventions by labeling prisoners we take in war as "enemy combatants" instead of "POW's". This allowed his orders to torture those POW's to be carried out. He is guilty of nothing less than "crimes against humanity" and should be turned over to the world court to stand trial for his actions. Warentless phone tapping and spying violates all of our constitutional rights, holding people indefinately without charging them with a crime violates their rights, .............

And this list can go on, and on, and on.

The point is, The Project for the New American Century drew up a set of plans in the late 90's that outlined a plan for the United States to invade a middle eastern country, preferably Iraq. For lots of reason, among them control of oil supplies and to keep the US as the worlds sole superpower. Almost every member of the group that worked on those plans was/is a member of Bush's administration. They came into office looking for any excuse to go to war with Iraq. So when the attacks happened, instead of spending all of America's resources to bring the people responsible to justice, he immediatley decided this was the excuse and ordered the plans to be made to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. The Downing Street Memo's prove this.

Bush must be impeached for every crime he has committed since taking office. We have to set an example for others like him that would look at his administration as proof that they could get away with those crimes. Once the impeachment proceedings begin, ALL the evidence would be presented openly before the whole world, and as each piece was brought to light, it would be impossible for the Republicans to not vote to remove him from power. Any Republican that voted no would never hold public office in this country again.

There is too much damming evidence against him, Cheney, and other members of his administration for them not to be punished and brought to justice. Once the hearings begin, the mountains of evidence that would be made public would guarantee that the Republicans voted with the Dems, there is no way that they could not. It would also soundly and forever destroy any future political asperations of any member of the Bush family, and that needs to happen. We dont need to deal with the machinations and evil-doings of a Bush political dynasty.

My concern isnt about getting the convictions from the Republicans, that would be a foregone conclusion. There is too much evidence for him to not be convicted. My concern is that we shouldnt Impeach him first. We must first hold the hearings so that Haliburtons assests can be seized in order to recoup the billions of dollars they frauduently billed the government for or outright stole in Iraq. So that the people who took part in Cheney's energy task force can be forced to testify and we can prove that this government allowed the oil and gas companies to write the US energy policy. So that everyone involved with the hacked voting machines can be brought in to testify, and we can once and for all have an honest chance to prove that Bush didnt win either the 2000 election or the 2004 election. Florida 2000 was the test run for them to blatantly steal the 2004 election. He didnt win either, and with control of Congress the long awaited and needed investigation can finally begin. Why? Because you prove what happened in either election, then he isnt/ wasnt President and that means that no bill he signed is actually law....so everything that worthless ass-bag has done in the last six years is made null and void. It means that there are two open seats on the Supreme Court for the Democratic President to appoint to ensure the Supreme Court goes the way it actually should instead of the nightmare it is now thanks to these evil, evil crooks now running this country. It shows the whole world that NO ONE, not even the President of the United States is above the law......

So, yes, we MUST impeach Bush and Cheney at the least. We owe it to this country, we owe it to the world, and we owe it to ourselves. That they will be convicted is a certainty. When the evidence is openly presented, there is no one that would vote with them. We just need to take our time in doing it, so that we can make sure to get all the other crooks when we finally get the biggest crooks.

[Ignacio Upton]

41. If the investigations shows clearly unconstitutional offenses

Then I expect several Republicans to save their asses and vote to impeach (ie. Arlen Specter.)

[RedStateShame]

43. THERE WAS A SHREDDER OUTSIDE CHENEY'S PLACE!!!

How the hell can that not be investigated?

[stevietheman]

44. Agreed. But if a supermajority of the American people demand it...

at some point, it would then become prudent to pursue it. Recall that with the last impeachment, the American people were roundly against it.

[leftofthedial]

45. he could be impeached in the House

and not removed by the Senate

same as Clinton

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Remember Watergate?

Dems didn't have 2/3 voting majority in the Senate.

So why do you suppose Nixon resigned?

[sweetheart]

48. reopen the 9/11 investigation & let water flow downhill nt

[nini]

49. I don't want our congress to come to a standstill over this crap either

I want that shithead's head on a platter just like everyone else here, BUT right now I'd rather see the House get to work and get things done for the country. Let's face it - we're already running for the presidency in 2008 and we have to prove we're on the side of the people and get some stuff done. If we get bogged down in an impeachment that won't fly past the senate we're wasting time.

We'd all like that asshole to get his and I believe he eventually will. BUT the country is more important right now.

I'll put the working poor, the troops etc.. ahead of my need to see the prince boy bitch slapped.

Simple as that :patriot:

[jayctravis]

50. I think I agree.

Remember how Clinton's impeachment ground EVERYTHING to a halt? We have our kids in Iraq and as much as it would be awesome to see him squirm, we *should* spend the time starting to fix this entire mess. And you do need that supermajority.

Congressional censure and investigations...yes. We may not impeach him, but we can air out every bit of dirty laundry he's tucked away.

[Odin2005]

52. We don't have enough votes to impeach, but we can humiliate the Neo-Cons

LET THE INVESTIGATIONS BEGIN!

[ThomWV]

53. An Impeachment Is Required If For No Other Reason Than To Provide A Benchmark

For future generations to know when an impeachable offense has been committed. Right now the bar rests at groin level, it needs to be raised.

[Phillycat]

54. I have an honest question.

I really don't know the answer to this:

Doesn't it say in the Constitution or something that if the president breaks the law, Congress has an OBLIGATION to impeach? I mean, aren't we compelled to if we have evidence he broke the law?

[H2O Man]

58. The Constitution

grants the Congress the right and indeed the responsibility to impeach members of the executive and judicial branches for corruption. It is not limited to the president. And the crimes of this administration, by no coincidence, are not limited to the president. The House should begin to investigate the lies that led us to war in Iraq. Those lies can be traced to the Office of the Vice President.

[TahitiNut]

60. The word is "shall" ... and implies a DUTY to impeach, imho.

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Such language, imho, is consistent. When the word "may" is used, it's an authorization but not prescriptive. When the word "shall" is used, it's obligatory: a duty.

[H2O Man]

61. Right.

This isn't really open to debate. It's their duty. It doesn't matter if some people think that republicans "might" get mad, or the other nonsense we read here about "revenge." It's the law of the land.

It should also be mentioned that no serious case can be made that investigating the crimes of the administration will "hurt" us in the future. There are three examples in recent history when impeachments have been of concern. First was Nixon; it surely did not hurt the democratic party. It did hurt republicans, when the public became aware of the full extent of the administration's corruption.

Second came Reagan; the democrats opted not to press forward, despite having solid evidence from the Iran-Contra scandal that should have resulted in an impeachment. Doing so did not help democrats. Quite the opposite. And it hurt the country.

Third was Clinton being impeached. One need only look at the make-up of the House from 1994 until today to see that this did not hurt the republicans.

[TahitiNut]

63. Very aptly observed, (as usual, I might add.)

Power only serves power when it's 'argued' that impeachment is "bad' ... either for the party or the country. That's abject nonsense, imho. Indeed, the brilliance of the Constitution is in no small part reflected in the power of impeachment held by the "people's house" - that the Chief Executive can be removed and a civil, orderly transfer of power can happen without a coup or blood in the streets. Even in cases of assassination (with far less 'preparation'), it's proven that we can go on without serious concern for the stability of our republic.

I STRONGLY believe we impeach far too infrequently. (When the number of assassinations exceeds the number of impeachments, I think that's obvious.) I'd like to see it exercised far more often - no matter what party is in power.

[H2O Man]

64. The discussion

about impeachment indicates that a number of DUers are unfamiliar with the concepts expressed by some of our Founding Fathers. I think it would be of value for people to become familiar with the writings of people such as George Mason, Ben Franklin, and James Madison.

[Deja Q]

56. No vengeance. If we do, we'll lose BIG in 2008.

Let's be the moral party and be 100% uniform in things. It's the only way to stop the freepers, who at that point would then be inclined to call us all 'communists' for putting good people in jail just because they are wealthy or something. :crazy:

[Senator]

59. Impeachment . . IS . . Our "Postitive Agenda"...

Without it, what exactly are the Dems offering TO DO with their shiny new non-veto-proof majority ?!?

There's no magic potion to circumvent "rule by signing statement." Any law, or court ruling for that matter, is just "words on a page" to these neofascists. All this gum-flapping about "bipartisan change" is just more beltway babble, designed to reassure the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy that "all is well."

Don't fall for it. It has the same connection to real reality as "stay the course." Cooperation with war criminals and election thieves only makes you complicit with their crimes.

That's the reality folks.

(Note: The public "get this" instinctively. Which is why all Dem promises, point plans, and really-real security statements ring so hollow.)

No "investigation" is needed. In fact the suggestion itself is a veiled call to inaction. What part of "We don't need no stinking badges (warrants)!" do people not understand ?!? How is TERRORZING the American People with a bomb threat of "Mushroom Clouds ... in 45 minutes" not an impeachable offense? Even if they hadn't done it to commit war crimes in our name?

Save perhaps Feingold and Conyers, THE LOT OF THEM are complicit with ongoing criminality and treason. And so are each and every one of us, if we're not screaming our heads off about it.

Yes, screaming. "Violence" really is the answer.

Stop listening to the Beltway BS from the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy. Calling for impeachment is not bad strategy. It will not cause a "backlash." It will not "be like the Clinton impeachment" (it will be the opposite - just like most things the Euphemedia nervously parrots).

But the bottom line is that strategy, fallout, and likelihood of success CANNOT be part of the equation. It is simply a moral imperative. Something that we all know must be done. Principles we're not willing to stand on are just bromides.

There really is no other moral or patriotic, positive option.

--

[Guaranteed]

65. Totally agreed. nt