Are we splitting over a difference in process concerning impeachment?

[Zhade]

Recently I've read anti-impeachment posts that are pro-investigations. In most cases, these DUers are up for impeachment if that's where the investigations lead.

Are we using two different terms for the process? When a poster says "impeach them!", does that mean "follow through with the investigations process and impeach if the evidence leads to crimes worthy of impeachment" for some and "jump right into voting on impeachment" for others?

Or are there people here who truly think that, even with proven high crimes committed by the administration complete with solid corroborating evidence, we shouldn't impeach AT ALL?

Hence, this poll's questions:

[Floogeldy]

1. I read no semantic differences in the choices you offer.

Perhaps you should re-phrase the poll.

[Zhade]

2. I edited it, maybe it makes better sense now?

NT!

[Trajan]

3. I investigate whether a peach has a wormhole or not ....

before I eat it ....

I investigate the toilet seat before I sit .... (and the presense of a roll of paper ..)

I investigate the gas price before I pull in to get gas ....

I investigate the sky before I grab the coat or umbrella ...

Cmon .... EVERYONE investigates EVERYTHING ....

Small minded people have such petty disagreements ....

Impeachment is a legal case, argued by prosecutors, that requires factual evidence in support of the case .... acquiring such evidence requires investigation .... investigation simply means acquiring facts through empirical observation ... EVERY legal case requires it of BOTH sides ... It would be a dereliction of duty to NOT investigate impeachable offenses if a case is to be made ....

These are lame ass arguments ....

BTW: Im not voting in this poll ....

[Webster Green]

4. The real question seems to be: Can we multi-task?

I've posted this on numerous hysterical (IMO) threads, that seem to take the position that investigating the lies that led to war, the corruption, outing CIA agent, and on and on....will somehow shut down the ability of congress to address any other issues, or that letting the American people know the truth would somehow be political suicide for dems.

I don't see how either of those things would be true.

[mikelewis]

5. Investigate using the new Interrogation techniques approved by the Senate...

... and then impeach the fucker. But don't stop the interrogations until he admits his guilt.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Impeach, AND Keep Investigating

Impeachment is only the start of the trial - not the conviction. There can be no doubt that Bush committed unconstitutional acts numerous times - the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. It's also clear that these were serious breaches, e.g., totally blowing off the Fourth Amendment - not minor technical transgressions.

The only question now is whether Bush was just playing aggressively and close to the line, as many Presidents do - or whether he was seeking to destroy the Constitution. The Congress NEEDS to decide this, pronto, and do the right thing.

(IT'S IMPORTANT, DAMMIT! THIS IS PRECISELY HOW GERMANY WENT, IN A FEW SHORT YEARS, FROM BEING THE MOST TOLERANT DEMOCRACY ON EARTH TO THE THIRD REICH. READ SOME HISTORY, PEOPLE - IT REALLY, REALLY NEEDS TO BE STOPPED.)

[Laelth]

13. Sounds good to me.

As long as we show some backbone and stand up for the Constitution, I'm on board.

:patriot:

-Laelth

[WritersBlock]

7. Doesn't impeachment begin with investigation & hearings anyway?

My memory can be feeble at times, but here's what I thought the process involved...

The House Judiciary Committee investigates and holds hearings, and if there is probable cause for impeachment, they bring the matter before the full House, which votes on impeachment.

If the House vote is in favor of impeachment, then the person has been "impeached," which is similar to being indicted by a grand jury.

Then it goes to the Senate, which votes on whether to convict. And only after conviction by the Senate is the person removed from office.

I stand awaiting correction by legal experts, but my tentative answer to the OP's question is "yes." :)

[Laelth]

10. That sounds right to me.

But, as I argue below, the whole "investigation" argument may just be an excuse to avoid impeachment altogether. I mean, seriously. How much more evidence do we need? Bush signs laws and explains how he's not bound to follow them. That is, arguably, an impeachable violation of our Constitutional separation of powers. He admits to violating the FISA act. Honestly. Investigations are not really necessary, and if they are Constitutionally required, they could be completed in a day.

No. The whole "investigations" argument is a cover for something else, I fear.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[Laelth]

8. Anyone calling for lengthy investigations ...

... if they're honest with themselves, may discover that they, simply, do not want to impeach Bush.

We Democrats have been telling the American people that Bush has been shredding the Constitution since 9-11. Now those who favor investigations want to tell the American people, "Oh, sorry. Really, we're not sure he's been shredding the Constitution. We'll need to investigate that, and we'll get back to you about impeachment."

Is that what we want to tell our friends? Is that what we want to tell the American people?

No? I didn't think so. If the investigation proponents are honest with themselves, they might just discover that they just don't want to see an impeachment. And this insistence on formal procedures is merely a convenient and savvy means of avoiding an unpleasant national episode.

just my two cents ...

-Laelth

[Zhade]

23. Agreed.

The evidence must be gathered - but enough can be gathered to justify impeachment proceedings in a very, very short time. Conyers and Waxman have already done extensive work officially detailing some of these crimes.

And you're right - I've seen hints of people seeming to want to say "well, b*s* didn't REALLY do anything THAT bad, right? I mean, maybe it's bad but did he break the law?"

Which is patent bullshit. As already said, the Supreme Court itself has ruled on some of their breaches of the law (which are what? crimes).

It's like a sudden amnesia brought on by the "joy of the win".

[orleans]

9. congress needs to do their job, their job consists of oversight,

checks & balances.

if they find impeachable offenses (and of course they will) it is their duty to impeach

it is their duty to investigate what the fuck has been going on



otherwise--they're as useless as the pukes, just sitting around collecting a paycheck.

am i wrong?

[Zhade]

24. Constitutional scholars would say you're dead-on.

NT!

[Up2Late]

11. Other, this is a very Biased Poll! Do you work at Fox "news" or something?

Impeachment of Bush would waste a LOT of time that the new Democratic Congress needs to use to fix all the crap the ReThuglicans Screwed up over the last 6 years!!!

And it would probably cost us the Congress and the White House in 2008, 2012, and 2016, maybe longer.

Would you REALLY want a PRESIDENT CHENEY!?!?

I know, Impeaching Bush and Cheney and just about every other Republican in the Legislative and Judicial branch would make you feel better, but it's going to take at LEAST 2 years to just stop the bleeding and turn this Bloated Cruse Ship around and headed in the right direction.

Think about it, the Democrats have 12 months, maybe 15 months before the new 2008 Attack ads start, so if Joe Independent doesn't see some progress by then, we're done as the majority for a LONG Time.

[Zhade]

25. Did you really need to insult me?

Way to win an argument...

The answer is easy: if the investigations lead to impeachable crimes, go for Cheney first. After all, he's really the one to go after.

He's the one who led the plans to cook the intelligence on the Office of Special Plans.

He's the one knee-deep, even more so than b*s*, in the Plame outing.

His secret energy task force was likely behind the whole fucking war, what with its oil maps and whatnot.

So my question to you is this: given these three things, on top of all the crimes I didn't mention: do you oppose investigating the administration for their crimes?

[Up2Late]

30. Sorry, that was just the way this poll reads.

This is how this poll reads to me:

A) I'm right

B) Your Wrong

C) There is no answer so I'm going home

There's no Gray area like:

D) Frog march the whole lot of them over the next 2 years of investigations but let the Chimp/Puppet stay and sweat it out.

I DO want investigations, but going after the Chimp at the top is silly, he's just Cheney's monkey boy or Rove's Cheerleader-in-Chief, depending on who you want to believe.

And Going after the Chimp also give Fox "news" and all the RW Media, someone to rally behind, which would be very bad for Democrats in future elections.

Going after the Actual Criminals below the pResident, which would need to be done anyway during an investigation that leads to the formal bringing of charges (Impeachment) is going to take a long time and a lot of work and by the time it all done, it's going to be mid-2008 at least, so let's stop talking Impeachment, which is exactly what the Fox "news" crowd want us to do, and get to work that really needs to be done now.

I really don't think you, and MOST Americans, really understand how much and how many things the Republicans have screwed up over the last 6 to 12 years. Just fixing all the Federal Laws and Social programs (and Social "safety nets") is going to take at LEAST 2 years, probably more like 3 to 4.

So I say, lets get to work fixing America (AND New Orleans), and screw Bush, he's just a loud mouth bully. The best way to deal with a Bully is to ignore him and/or make him irrelevant, which he IS now (he's a "lame Duck now) because of this election.

I do hope, by the time January 20, 2008 rolls around, we will have figured out a good way to punish him more, but right now, there's a lot of work to do.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Investigate-Impeach-To The Hague

I am getting sick of reading DUers arguing against impeachment, for whatever stupid reason. I am getting REALLY FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of reminding those same people about what Bushler DID TO AMERICANS IN NEW ORLEANS! :mad:

[Ravy]

14. I am not sure he would be eligible to be extradited if he was

tried here first in impeachment hearings. Remember Oliver North.

[Swamp Rat]

18. Oliver North better keep his head low.

Investigations may lead to him too.

Bushler can be tried in absentia if need be.

[porphyrian]

33. What Swampy said, dammit! - n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Rahm and Schumer SAID on MTP -- investigations will not lead to impeachment "NO MATTER WHAT"

"And that's a promise."

[Oak2004]

16. Rahm and Schumer are a problem

Rahm is taking credit for the victory as his and the DLC's work, when it was nothing of the sort. And hasn't one of the DLCers talked about now purging the party's left?

But they are only two elected officials (albiet well placed ones), and opportunistic well-placed ones at that. If they thought their political future would be furthered with impeachment (i.e., if public outcry reached the point where they could not ignore it at their own peril), they would vote for impeachment in a heartbeat.

Sometimes it seems to me that everyone is forgetting our respective roles.

The precious few of us who are elected (and to a lesser extent those who work directly for them) have one role, that of governance, and they must trod carefully and speak diplomatically and work out compromises sometimes with some disgusting people, all the while playing cutthroat politics in the back rooms of power. By virtue of these people's roles, and the isolation they fall into, they can and do lose touch with the will of the public and with their own principles (some early and often, some slowly and rarely, but they all have their problems). Often even when they know something is the right thing to do, they can't move forward without a base of support, because to do so is to be cut off at their political knees.

The rest of us here are citizens and activists. Not only do we not need to move so carefully and speak so diplomatically, in many, if not most, instances, it is absolutely counterproductive for us to do so. As citizens it is our job to let our representatives know what we want them to do -- not figure out all facets of the political strategy around it (that's what the "pros" are for), but to let them know what we want, and to persuade and organize our fellow citizens to work as a group to let our representatives know what we want.

And it is our job to give our representatives cover for what they know is the right thing to do.

You can be certain that there are elected officials in the new Congress who know that the right thing to do is investigate and impeach. Right now if they stuck their necks out too far they'd have their heads cut off by the incoming leadership (who probably put the kabosh on impeachment for reasons of either backroom deals (including deals with wealthy donors) or because some consultant told them to (why they continue to listen to consultant crap to the extent they do I don't know -- you can see on its face the Republicans have not, all they years they were winning, because they use consultants to further the promotion of their agenda, not to create it for them.)) Right now I'm sure our supporters in Congress would even let us know who they are, and give us the lowdown on what we're up against, if they could communicate with us entirely off the record and trust we would keep it that way.

If a loud public outcry arises for impeachment, one that will give our supporters in Congress cover, then they can and will put the matter back on the table, saying they were doing so not out of any personal desire to do so, but because their constituents demand it. How do I know this? A few decades ago I worked to give the GOP cover on issues where Republican politicians couldn't afford to stick their necks out. I worked hand in hand with certain GOP legislators, meeting with them in private, orchestrating public outcry in coordination with their political needs and the legislative agenda. While I did this for GOP legislators, there were others working, in a somewhat less organized manner but nonetheless to the same ends, with Democratic legislators on issues of interest to them.

There is one time where we must take our activists' hats' off and speak in the language of politicians and party officials, and that is when we are representing a politician as a campaign worker or the party as a whole.

For those who have a very different opinion about impeachment than I do, everything I say above applies to you, only substitute "against impeachment". Work hard for what you believe, and I'll work hard for what I believe, and together we'll be practicing this thing called "democracy". We don't have to give it up, or give up differences of opinion, in order to also find common ground.

[Zhade]

26. So they've decided to let the criminals literally get away with murder.

Okay, so now I know some OTHERS who are against the rule of law.

[Guaranteed]

17. Do we not already know what he's done?

His offenses are already quite impeachable. He violated the Constitution repeatedly and lied to the American people to start a war.

Nevertheless, I'm against it. He only has two years left, and he's powerless. The worst thing we could do is start talking about impeachment.

We DO need to investigate him and keep him on his heels, find out as much as we can. But forget about the impeachment.

[Up2Late]

20. I agree, a long string of WH and Congressional ReThugs resigning

in disgrace, from now until the November 2008 Elections would be much more effective, Impeachment would only win him sympathy and bring the hard core Dem-haters out of the woodwork.

At this point, Impeachment, which is only the bringing of formal charges, would be a rush job. If anything, drag him and the Republicans through the mud up and until the 2008 Election, they do that and we'll win BIG in 2008.

[Guaranteed]

21. Exactly. And then we can actually FIX our country. nt

[Zhade]

27. I fail to understand how talking about holding him accountable...

...is the WORST thing we can do, when it's clear Americans voted to...hold b*s* accountable, on the war and so many other things.

So are you saying that if high crimes and misdemeanors are proven during the investigations, they should NOT be held accountable as the rule of law and the Constitution demands of us?

[Guaranteed]

32. What is this "if" stuff? We know what he did! He's a goddamned criminal.

I'm saying that we know he's a criminal, but while investigations are important we can't start talking about impeaching him. He's got two years left, he's powerless, and we need to get the WH in 2008, so we can FIX. THE. COUNTRY.

Which is what so many DUers seem to be forgetting about now- we have real problems. It's all vendetta and anger. The place has turned into freeperville.

[loyalsister]

19. It's all about context

The only people who would even push for investigations based on historical reports are hardliners who happen to be a pretty small minority.
I can respect the "do the right thing" impulse, but at the same time I see these investigations as something that require some public impetus.
If the media were covering some of the older stories for the first time, now then I think there would be a strong interest in investigating.

Without that public impetus I think we should stick with other matters at hand, such as reconsidering the morality of taking out 150,00 civilians as collateral damage in pursuit of one monsterous leader and lots of "evil-doers" who weren't there in the first place.

Getting out of this war a way that honors the responsibility we owe to the Iraqi people is going to take a lot of focus. There are people who simply want desperately to just live lives with jobs and send their kids to school. We owe them an infrastructure that offers that opportunity. That's what they had before we took out the bad guy and pretended their country was infested with evil-doers.

Congress needs to focus their attention on what we owe them and what they can do to improve opportunity HERE. They will need the help of some Republicans to get stuff done. If they finesse it just right and don't operate too adversarial they may be able to do it.
Diplomacy is the art of sending someone to hell and having them enjoy the trip. Artful politics is in order now.

[Zhade]

28. What part of "the law requires that we do this" doesn't register?

It's not a choice. We're required to do this, or all of our pretending to care about justice is bullshit. Utter bullshit.

It isn't up for debate what the Constitution requires.

If these criminals are not held accountable, don't be surprised when they keep turning up like a bad penny. People like Cheney have been behind the scenes in DC for DECADES. Hell, he worked for Nixon and Ford.

Criminals from the Reagan and Bush I era made it into this guy's circle of influence, because we didn't follow the rule of law.

We're trying to prevent a repeat of that mistake.

[loyalsister]

31. And what about

the constitutional obligation to serve and represent the interests of people who elected them? Is there no rule of law behind that? Is there no high moral purpose at the very least?

Impeachment is way more than a simple a criminal prosecutorial mechanism.
It is political. The people who serve as jurists are accountable to constituents.
There has to be a real public persuasion for it to be a realistic option.

Our voices and opinions are not the only ones out there.
There are people who have unmet needs that do not share your priorities.

[MGD]

22. Investigate and impeach him such that we don't have to put up with a President Cheney for too long.

[Zhade]

29. Go after Cheney first - he's the ringmaster.

Or go after his cronies and build a case to take him down, then drag b*s* down with him.