Name 67 Senators who would vote to remove Bush* from office.

[LoZoccolo]

...aaaaaaaand GO!

[mcctatas]

1. Feingold...

ummm...okay then, there's one

[onenote]

42. not at the moment he wouldn't

Again, unless there are hearings that produce evidence that causes a bi-partisan consensus to develop in favor of impeachment (something that manifestly does not exist now), even Feingold would not vote to impeach. How do I know this? Well, I don't "know" it, but I'll take Feingold at his word:

"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

"Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

"I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999

[mikeybabe125]

2. lol... Kerry

only one!

[JI7]

3. Boxer

3 so far.

[babylonsister]

4. Once the truth comes out, there might be more than that. nt

[napi21]

5. It's too soon to do that. You really have to wait for hearings and

see what info is uncovered that can be proven.

I had this discussion on another thread this afternoon. Ican think back to the Watergate hearings, and there came a point when so much damning info had been uncovered, a group of Pubs went to the WH and told Nixon he would have to resign or be impeached because they couldn't protect him anymore.

If you ever had a chance to follow investigations like this, you know how many thingscome out that nobody would have ever even guessed! People get scared and spill the beans on lots of things.

If you are asking your question as of January when the new Congress takes office, the answer would be there is no way you'd ever get 67. After hearings, it may be an entirely different story.

[LoZoccolo]

12. This is a thoughtful and compelling opposing response; thank you.

To everyone else: see, it is not so difficult.

[Laelth]

6. Name just one who will stand up for the Constitution.

:mad:

OP--you are deliberately missing the point of impeachment. We don't have to remove him from office. We only have to show the American people and the world that we will fight for our Constitution and will remain a nation of laws.

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

21. But we haven't shown the American people anything by merely

impeaching him -- that is equivalent to indicting someone. If we don't have 67 votes to CONVICT, then he can say that the Senate found him NOT GUILTY. And he and his supporters are vindicated.

[Laelth]

22. We don't need to convict him.

I neither need nor expect a conviction. I expect my elected leaders to do what they were elected to do and what they swore to do ... uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. * and the Rupukes have walked all over the Constitution for the last six years. Do you deny that? If not, impeachment is the duty of those who swore to uphold the law of this land. Whether or not * is convicted by the Senate is irrelevant.

imho ...

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--toned down. Sorry. It's late, and I'm tired.

[pnwmom]

28. I disagree. A good prosecutor doesn't try a case

that she can't win. Unless we have the evidence to get a conviction, I think it's a waste of time and could well backfire.

[onenote]

40. so when he's acquitted, you think that will be a good thing?

it won't be.

[Old and In the Way]

23. Whether he is convicted or not....the Senators will need to answer to

their constituents. If they wish to give him a pass when the articles of impeachment are drawn, then they can explain their reasoning...same if they vote for it. The voters can decide if they accept or reject that position. The chickenshit way out is to avoid that debate and vote. If they choose that route, then I hope we make that an issue in the selection of our next Senators.

[pnwmom]

29. If investigations unearth information that has Republican

constituents clamoring for Bush to be impeached, then that's a different story. But right now we don't have anywhere near the 67 votes. We probably don't even have 51 votes.

[Old and In the Way]

30. Of course we don't. We should, rightfully, have "0" votes now.

WHEN we have investigations, that's when positions on impeachment begin to develop.

[mcctatas]

7. maybe we can get the repuke senators on board if someone blows chimpy

anyone willing to take one for the team??? :puke:

[NoSheep]

9. That's what I was thinking...and no.

[mcctatas]

11. come on...

where's your patriotic spirit?? :evilgrin:

[NoSheep]

14. I have a very "delicate system"

[NoSheep]

8. Kennedy, Boxer, Rockefeller, Reid, Byrd, Biden, Webb, Conyers

That's not enough, is it?

[FyurFly]

13. Seconding Webb! n/t

[NoPasaran]

37. Scratch Conyers

He's not a senator.

[onenote]

41. at this point there is no reason to think any of them would vote to impeach

after hearings, if there is evidence that causes a consensus to form, a bi-partisan consensus, then yes. Now, no.

[philosophie_en_rose]

10. Senator Les Wynan

:bounce:

[lapfog_1]

15. Depends on the evidence presented by the House Managers.

Seriously, we are ahead of ourselves.

At the beginning of watergate, you couldn't have even gotten a House subcommittee to draft the articles. But after the hearings where aid after aid came forward and either lied under oath or told the truth (Thank you John Dean!!!)... after those hearings, you couldn't find a Senator to vote NOT TO REMOVE (or more than a handful). And Nixon, seeing the writing on the wall, resigned.

[Old and In the Way]

24. And one Republican Congressman, Bill Cohen, voted the bill out of committee.

I have always respected that man's integrity and his willingness to put country before Party.

[mom cat]

16. The list will keep growing as the evidence mounts. Bush has destroyed the Republican

Party and plenty of then will see the benefit in repudiating his high crimes and misdemeanors. They have now seen what an aroused electorate is capable of doing. These crimes can not just be swept under the rug in a false gesture of "healing the country". We tried that route after Iran Contra and are still being haunted by the participants in that scandal, including Negroponte and now Gates. We either stand behind the constitution and the law or we hug the chimp like an abused spouse ... like John McCain.

[aquart]

17. I think they'd impeach him all by themselves today.

Planning to fire Rummy for months, indeed!

[mom cat]

35. Once again, he is blaming others instead of taking responsibilty for

his own actions!

[Occulus]

18. Where are we related to the Nixon admin?

That's my benchmark. Clinton's impeachment was a sham process; there never was any way that the Senate during his time in office would ever have convicted him. I very firmly believe his impeachment was done to take the impeachment of the Republican candidate- whoever they saw as the 2000 frontrunner at the time- completely off the table.

And look at how well it's worked, hmmm? We can't even officially consider impeachment because "it would be bad for the country". The onlt reason people think that way is because they vividly (and intentionally so) remember the Clinton impeachment circus and all it entailed.

Impeachment was never meant to be such a circus, but the average American has about || this big a reason to know such a thing. The average American sees impeachment as a purely political tool used to punish otherwise minor personal or sexual indiscretions. They do not see it as a tool used to remove a very bad leader from office. Note the process that's already "off the table".

Given those things, where is * related to Nixon? Didn't a whole bunch of Nixon supporters in Congress switch over toward impeachment AND conviction once the level of crimes became publicly known? I would think they (Congress as a whole) would be much more amenable to the solution of impeachment AND REMOVAL should relevant, irrefutable facts come under a very public light....

....but then again, I'm an idealist to a large extent, and believe the only thing holding back the most perfect of worlds are those profiting from its imperfections. Maybe I should be ignored....

[Old and In the Way]

25. Well stated!

"I very firmly believe his impeachment was done to take the impeachment of the Republican candidate- whoever they saw as the 2000 frontrunner at the time- completely off the table."

Very astute observation and completely correct. They were planning the Iraq invasion since the mid-90's. They stole the 2000 election. Why wouldn't they be pre-emptively nuking that key part of our Constitution? I remember how Bill Clinton preached bi-partisan geniality and derailed Iran-Contra. He sure got a big thank you from the Republicans for that. And those same players have re-infested themselves into our government, doing the same illegal shit all over again. We need to excise this cancer once and for all.

[ReadTomPaine]

27. Nicely written.

I'm on board with much of this.

[WinkyDink]

19. Not a fair question. There weren't any until Nixon was compelled

to resign.
Some people just need to see the overhwelming evidence first.

[Rainscents]

20. Bernie Sander!

[sweetheart]

26. let the public see the lies, and 90 senators will vote

The senators just respond to their constituents. Let the court of public
opinion see the facts.

[WI_DEM]

31. Right now there aren't 67--we would need investigations and then maybe

then we could get them--but it's a tall order.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. ALL of them would once the corruption has been exposed to THE PEOPLE

who will be SCREAMING IMPEACHMENT. The repukes will want to get rid of that man ASAP before the '08 election.

Mark my words. He has destroyed their party and their country. When THE PEOPLE learn how deep the corruption goes...the repukes won't be able to stop the freight train.

[NJ Democrats]

33. Unfortanly there aren't 67 but

here's who would:
Kerry, Kennedy, Reed (RI) Leahy, Sanders, Menendez, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Cardin, Levin, Stabnow, Kohl, Obama, Boxer, Wyden, Akaka, Inoyne, Byrd, Rockefeller, and maybe some others.
The questin is how many Moderate Dems and Mod Republicans would go along

[Marie26]

34. Good point. It's 30, tops. nt

[Quixote1818]

36. Most of them once public opinion puts pressure on them. nt

[zyguh]

38. If you all just settle down and let the investigations take there course I can name 100 of em.....

If you guys will just settle down and let the investigations in Congress work themselves out I can name 100 Senators that will vote for Impeachment. The proof is there that Bush ordered intelligence fixed to lead us into Iraq and that they wanted to invade before 9/11. The proof is there that they allowed Bin Laden to escape at Torra Bora because they were busy planning the Iraq war instead of actually trying to catch the guy who ordered the attacks on our country.

The proof is there that there was bid rigging, and that Cheney did pull strings to get Haliburton billions in contracts in Iraq, the proof is there that the contractors in Iraq have been outright stealing money, and fraudulently billing the government for services not rendered, etc.

When the FBI traced the money trail for 9/11 and it led to members of the Saudi Government Bush ordered the information sealed for national security. Just because something will be embarassing to your families business partners doesnt make it a state secret, and that info will be made public by Congress. Bush and Gonzo decided they could get away with violating the Geneva Conventions because that treaty says "prisoners of war" and if Bush just called the prisoners we took in war "enemy combatents" instead of POW's then 'legally' they wouldnt fall under the Geneva Conventions. That info will come out. There are video tapes and thousands more pictures of what happened at Abhu Graib and they need to be made public......videos showing the male prisoners forced to perform sex acts on each other, and of guards sodomizing young boys in front of their mothers in order to coerce the mothers to talk. The abuses that we have publicly seen about what happened there barely scratch the surface and it all needs to be made public so the world can see what Bush ordered to have happen and justified happening when he called the prisoners we took in this war(you know, prisoners of war) enemy combatants.

Bush said in front of the nation he would find out who leaked Plames name and they would be gone, turns out Bush was responsible and the world will find out. The world will find out every single little slimey thing the entire Republican administration has done to this country over the last 6 years.

SO.......even when the mountain of evidence is sitting there, and is enough to Impeachment 100 presidents we still SHOULDNT impeach yet. Instead we should keep investigating, and bringing up more evidence of more crimes, and just keep piling it on, and piling it on, and piling it on so that finally its the Republicans in Congress that are begging us to finally just Impeach him and get it over with so that the crimes can stop being exposed.

Because the more crimes we expose the less chance ANY Republican has of winning a single vote in 2008. Let them run McCain for president, because McCain is one of the people who has seen the torture video's and seen all the pictures so when all that evidence comes out and goes public we can simply point out that McCain new all this and didnt do a damn thing about it. He should have leaked the videos and the pictures to stop it, but didnt because apparently it was less important to make sure that no soldier ever be tortured like he was in Nam then it was for him to become President. He sold any integrity or moral high ground he could have had when he didnt do the right thing, and leak the evidence and resign his seat in protest......so let them run him.

Yeah, if you all will just relaxe and sit back and stop screaming Impeach, and instead start screaming INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE I can name 100 senators who will vote to Impeach. Its called the US Senate. We need to investigate until the Republicans are beggin us to just let them Impeach him and bring and end to it. The more we investigate the longer it will be before the Republican party ever has a majority in Congress or wins the White House again.

[Octafish]

39. After they hear the evidence?

Right now, there certainly aren't enough to vote that way.

After the trials, who knows?

[mmonk]

43. When the impeachment process revealed the guilt of crimes

through the hearings.