Impeachment and the rule of law

[Kber]

First we investigate (vigorously and honestly). If evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors surface, then we impeach. Calling for impeachment before a proper investigation is putting the horse before the cart, I think.

If Congress does it's due diligence, and the criminal evidence mounts, impeachment will no longer be a political decision - it will be what the American people demand as a matter of justice.

[AndyA]

1. I agree.

I just find it odd that the terminology used says it's "not on the table." Almost as if it were agreed upon that those were the words to use in response to questions of impeachment.

I'd feel much better if the response was, "We have no way of knowing at this point in time if that will be an issue. If, through our normal checks and balances, something questionable comes up, we will look into it and proceed as required by law if necessary."

That would be OK. The way it is now, it almost sounds as if some deal has been made under the table to allow Bush to slide by without any repercussions. And I don't like the thought of that at all.

Investigations, yes. Impeachment, yes - when the investigations indicate it's necessary. But no deals to let him off the hook for his actions. That would set a bad precedent going forward.

[NotGivingUp]

7. 'not on the table' got to me too. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Surface?

Lying to the congress about WMD, illegal wire taps, violating Geneva conventions, collusion with Enron & Halliburton & god knows what else. Get the impeachment started.

[bryant69]

4. Those are mostly either non-impeachable offenses

or the evidence is shakey - the one relitively solid ground are the warrentless wire taps, but those present poltical problems.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

10. How do you get that?

Which are unimpeachable?

[Kber]

9. Of course they will "surface"

but for impeachment to be an option, it must follow an official investigation even if it's just a retelling of what we already know.

Even if you shoot a guy in the middle of town in plain sight of 100 witnesses, you still get an investigation and trial before we string you up.

[lumpy]

12. The case against Bush/Cheney is floating

on top of the water like scum. There is not much to investigate re. whether or not a case is warranted. Putting the pieces together for presentation is the next step. Elizabeth Holtzman is the expert on impeachment, with her team it could be a lock. And in MHO it should be done. Justice for all, you know.

[longship]

3. Public support is crucial.

Many people here are claiming it already exists, but that is not true. It is not sufficient that a mere majority of the public supports it. Impeachment is such a damaging action that there has to be overwhelming support. That's why we've only started down that road very few times in our history. We have to be damned sure that we have the vast majority of the public behind us if we are to go down that road.

It took over a year of investigations to obtain public support for Watergate, first from the Justice Department, then the Senate. Even then, it took a reckless act by an out of control President, the Saturday Night Massacre, before public opinion turned the corner. However, when it happened, it happened quickly. 50,000 telegrams hit Congress on the day of the massacre, most of which called for Nixon's impeachment. Western Union had to put on extra operators to handle the traffic. Within two months, impeachment was above the fold on the front page. Only then, did the House Judiciary Committee take action.

That's what it will take this time, too.

[mmonk]

8. I have not seen that implication in the constitution.

It's a protection mechanism for the constitution.

[lumpy]

13. Didn't take public opinion to draw up impeachment

proceedings against Clinton. The damning fire is there, smoke be damned. Full speed ahead.

[longship]

15. Well, not exactly.

The people were clearly against the Clinton impeachment. Full speed ahead only increased his popularity. Also, the impeachment did not take in the Senate. Is that what you want to happen?

I didn't think so.

On the other hand, the call for Nixon's head on the impeachment platter was on the front page of many major newspapers in January, 1974 when the House Judiciary Committee approved the impeachment inquiry.

There were many of us calling for Nixon's impeachment all along. But the House did not act until the public as a whole came on board. That's the way it more-or-less has to happen. Otherwise, it only helps the opposition party.

The operative rhetorical question here might be, "Would you trade immediate impeachment proceedings for the White House and Congress in 2008?"

Also, "Are immediate impeachment proceedings necessary when investigations could easily bring on a general call for impeachment anyway?"

We need the call for impeachment to come from the people, not the Congress. That's the way it has to happen for it to succeed. A failed impeachment attempt can only help the very people whom we want to impeach.

[Tatiana]

5. I don't think anyone is advocating impeachment without evidence.

The point is, we've already got quite a bit of evidence collected already. It's a matter of connecting the dots to prove without a doubt that this administration is full of nothing but traitors to the Constitution.

Additional investigations and hearings can help fill in missing dots to develop a "slam dunk" case for impeachment and I don't think we should impeach until we have that "slam dunk" case made.

[mmonk]

6. Nobody is calling for impeachment before a proper

investigation. Some have said, though, impeachment is off the table. Therefore, you have the whole basis for what's going on here in general discussion.

[porphyrian]

11. It's amazing how much this needs to be repeated.

It seems it may never sink in with some.

[mmonk]

14. Depends on what you're arguing.