Bottom line: Impeachment is not discretionary.

[chaska]

As no one will remember, I have been sitting on the fence on the impeachment issue. I guess I'm guilty of NEVER trusting my gut, and since our president ALWAYS trusts his, one can probably forgive me for second guessing myself a wee bit too much occasionally.

And while I still haven't seen as much info as I would like on the "anti" side, I have read enough to convince me that not only should we impeach, but that we actually have no choice. The law is the law, and enforcement shouldn't be an option; certainly not considering the gravity of the offenses and the dangerous possible future consequences of not pursuing such action. The law, as I understand it, demands that these crimes be prosecuted.

I've included here links to three articles I read yesterday. The first one is a true ***MUST READ***. The quote below is excerpted therefrom.

(snip)
However, in stating flatly that "impeachment is off the table," incoming Speaker Pelosi and incoming Chairman Conyers appear to have erred rather substantially. Impeachment, of course, is a matter of Constitutional law, not personal discretion on the part of individual lawmakers. The pre-emptive nature of the decision by Pelosi and Conyers stands in sharp contrast to every principle of law enforcement. Congress - whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans - has a solemn duty to uphold and when necessary enforce the law.
(snip)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111306Z.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1114-22.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1114-30.htm

Kick it like you mean it.

[porphyrian]

1. I mean it.

However, don't think for a second that the "table" comments aren't simply political posturing. They are. Impeachment isn't a choice, it's an imperative.

[riderinthestorm]

9. I really wish though that Pelosi and Reid hadn't "postured" with this phrase

WHEN impeachment proceedings occur, the MSM is going to trot out Pelosi's statement that impeachment is off the table, and label her a big liar. This will be endlessly spun to erode her credibility just when she is going to need it most.

Also, I believe any future possibilities for Speaker Pelosi to run as a VP or Pres candidate just went out the window. This is her "flip flop" moment and she will take hell as a "whimsical woman" who can't make up her mind. She has a lot of fine qualities I'd love to see in a national level candidate but this phrase will come back to haunt her.

Does anyone know if she was cornered by the MSM to make this statement? I can't seem to find the genesis of it - why would she even bring it up? It's a really wierd thing to have brought up in the first place. Did she do this independently? Why not just let sleeping dogs lie? Until the last two weeks of the race (long after she made this comment), nobody in the MSM was predicting that we would take both houses which would have made impeachment moot.

[porphyrian]

10. They won't be able to do that for two reasons.

This is the genius of their adopting the stance in the first place. Impeachment isn't their choice. When the truth comes out, they'll have to do it, either as a Constitutional imperative or simply because of the number of us demanding it. So, they won't have lied, they really did take it off the table. The second reason is that, compared to the lies the media and this administration have made that will come to light shortly, any attempt to call Pelosi and Conyers liars will seem pathetic at best, and has little chance of changing the subject or being taken seriously.

[riderinthestorm]

11. In bargaining, once something is off the table it's usually off for good

going back on that significantly weakens one's position. Unless Pelosi and Reid can get the majority of rethugs (congressional rethugs AND average joe rethugs) to clamor for impeachment, I fear the MSM is going to have a field day with this. Pelosi and Reid DO control what goes on in the House and Senate, they will control what gets brought up and it will be spun as a lie. It sounds like a lie to me and I am on their side.

And yes, it may sound like a little lie in comparison but why the hell did she/he need to say it at all? "Our" side fudging these kinds of statements is just as wrong as when rethugs do it. Impeachment is huge (hugh!!11!!) and playing coy with it just sits wrong with me. I wish I knew the context, perhaps that would explain some of why she said this.

[chaska]

14. Yeah, but....

Really, it won't happen unless we really push for it. 'We' meaning the people. And if it comes to that, how can they stand in the way. They can't prevent it. I don't think any "lying" will be an issue for Pelosi, et al. And if the pugs try to make it an issue (of course they will), so what, the people will be with us because it was the people that made it happen. It took a majority of the people to bring the Nixon thing to that point.

My only real concern is that it could hurt us in rolling back all this crap that these bastards have passed. There's only so much you can do in a day, and there's a LOT to do.

[porphyrian]

15. They won't be going back on their position. They'll have no choice.

Impeachment isn't theirs to bargain with in the first place.

They said it to pre-empt the republican bullshit that this is all they want to do, and that they are merely seeking revenge. You can see from the reaction to the calls for impeachment here why it was a wise move. It's not a lie, it is off the table, until investigations and public outrcry demand differently. It's not really a trick, because every politician knows what it is. It was a smart political move.

[puebloknot]

18. Agree. Context. was a television news interview...

...where she was directly asked the question, and whether it was "a pledge."

There must have been some prior comment with the "off the table" content that the reporter picked up on. Someone here at DU posted a link to the video, seems like four or five days ago. I watched it and was appalled at Nancy Pelosi's assuming to herself the power to make that decision. I am not a narrow purist, I understand nuance and subtlety, but this was neither, in my view.

I might have marked it. I'll post it if I find it.

[guruoo]

24. Neither Pelosi nor Conyers own "the table"

[AntiFascist]

29. Wasn't it on 60 Minutes that she made a pledge that impeachment...

would never be considered? Her argument was that it would waste time and resources and there was too much other work to get done.

My feeling is that impeachment proceedings could ultimately bring about the end of war, restore our international respect, and allow funds to be diverted back to more important initiatives, but I suppose all this isn't enough of a priority. :sarcasm:

[madokie]

36. I think that she was implying that the investigation need to start first

and then based on the finding of said investigation go further. You and I know they are guilty or we're pretty sure of it or at least I am and that is where this is going but I don't think anything is to be gained by jumping the gun so to speak. With investigations the public will or will not be for impeachment and that is all that really matters, we get our will whatever it is. With the truth in front of them what do you reckon the public will want?

[guruoo]

66. Street talk tells me that if we approach this properly, we may actually

garner some conservative support for impeachment.

My primary message to conservatives while canvassing in '04 went something like:
'The Bush administration is, and will continue to betray you, and your values'.

Now many of those same conservatives are coming back
to me, stopping me in the grocery store, to say things on the order of:
'you were right' 'we elected a bunch of crooks' 'wish I had listened'

[warrens]

2. Let the legal system do its job

If he violated the law, which I believe he did, he will be impeached. But many here want impeachment first. It's what the Repukes did to Clinton. remember how well that worked for them?

[porphyrian]

3. You are wrong. People DON'T want impeachment before investigations.

Stop spreading this lie if you're doing it intentionally, or listen to me this time if you aren't. Investigations are a natural PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. It is implicit in a call for impeachment that evidence be collected first, and presumably the necessary support to make it stick as well. They AREN'T separate.

[chaska]

4. Well, I think that's an easy (but probably inaccurate) assumption to make....

We all KNOW he's guilty ... of many offenses. But that's a long way from having a case.

Case first, then charges. Of course.

[grizmaster]

5. let the investigations commence

I for one think our Constitution is worth defending.

[chaska]

6. Kick. Just cuz.

[Swamp Rat]

7. CARPE DIEM!!!

[Ms. Clio]

8. k&r

Great links.

Investigate.Impeach.Indict.Imprison. (Yes, this is the chain of events in an alternate reality, but wouldn't it be luverly?)

[longship]

12. Please do not confuse political statements with policy statements

"Impeachment is off the table" was a political statement meant to defuse the totally inevitable Repuke "Democrats just want to impeach" screeching. It does not mean that the Democrats have a *policy* of not impeaching.

Of course, the call for impeachment must, and always has, come from the people.

If you want impeachment on the table, say so proudly. Lobby your Congress critters. Write LTTEs. Make sure that you are calling for investigations and hearings, too, because that's the sole path to accomplishing it.

Join our chorus and please stop carping about these obviously political statements.
:thumbsup:

[mom cat]

17. We the people are always the ones to lead us toward more freedom and justice.

Nothing is different this time.

[puebloknot]

20. Hey, :-) I'm going to keep carping...

...about these obviously political statements because I'm tired of political chicanery. I'd never make it as a politician because I just think telling the truth carries much more weight than the constant games that go on. People know when they're being manipulated -- even unsophisticated people can feel it as some gut level -- and I would have felt better if Nancy Pelosi had just flat-out said that she was not in a position to even comment on that until the new year. I think her doing this was a bit of a window into her political soul!

I think it's important in LTTEs and other communications to let it be known that you *understand* that impeachment can't possibly occur without investigations aforethought. There has been so much misunderstanding of that fact on this board! :)

In general, I proudly concur in your comments!

[H2O Man]

13. Nominated!

Thank you for posting this.

[seize the time]

16. Help me understand something...

...I've been hearing so much talk lately that we must slow down and INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE, and INVESTIGATE before impeachment. Somehow I got the impression that Rep. Conyers had already done most of the heavy lifting on cataloging the impeachable offenses of the Bush administration and was ready to go. Now it's suddenly "off the table". Sounds like we're backpedaling instead of moving forward.

[puebloknot]

19. Welcome. You're even newer here than I am!

I had the very same impression, and was eagerly awaiting some kind of comment on Mr. Conyers' blog. Of course, the man was probably exhausted after the election, and can't be expected to announce his plans until he is properly seated with the new Congress in January.

I've been having a very bad feeling about this, however, because I admire John Conyers as one of the most honest people in Washington. I don't see him as someone who would play cynical political games, and that he's joined Nancy Pelosi in her "off the table" comment is worrisome. Is he being told to backpedal? Is he a gentleman who has stepped up to the plate to protect Nancy after her embarrasing faux pas? (Nah, that last one doesn't ring true.)

[Senator]

23. You are correct -- there's nothing to "investigate"

The regime admits and "defends" clearly impeachable offenses -- like illegal spying and violating Geneva.

The "investigations" question is whether to hold "impeachment hearings" or "open-ended fact-finding hearings" on specific matters (that may or may not lead to impeachment charges).

Doing the former (while not necessary) could well be helpful to bringing more of the public (already a majority) and even Republicans back into the reality-based community where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul. Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face.

That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it.

===

[guruoo]

26. I have mixed feelings....

IMHO, outcome is everything.
We don't want to pursue this in such a manner that we risk creating the kind of backlash
that sweeps us back to where we were 4, 5, 6 years ago.
We can never go back there again.

[Senator]

27. That sounds like fearing fear itself

There is no real indication that there would be any backlash. Only 44% oppose impeachment now and that's in face of a total lack of support or leadership in DC.

But even if there were a cost -- even severe, can we really choose complicity with war crimes?

If we have no sense of decency left, haven't "the terrorists" already won?

--

[guruoo]

55. You believe we can persuade the leadership to

go for it?

On edit: Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2973729#2974006

"if we jump on that train too fast, we can kiss '08 goodbye! The only way to do it is to bring all the sludge up for public consumption - then when the public demands it, impeach away."

[Senator]

56. Yes, I do

Because we have no right to think about our political advantage in '08 while torture and war crimes are ongoing in our names. The same goes for our "issues laundry list."

The public has already consumed all the sludge. They already want impeachemnt.

The "leadership" is simply Rationalizing for Inaction. As is the poster you linked to.

Sadly, it's what our side does best. And why we lose elections.

---

[guruoo]

69. With all due respect, I believe you're being

terribly short sighted here.
What we have no right to do is to allow this 'torture and war crimes in our name'
to ever happen again. So the obvious question here is, if they regained the political
advantage, what would stop them from doing this all over again?
i.e., more wars, more torture, more oppression
- in our name -

:patriot:

on edit: You're correct about our leadership.
We can no longer afford to take our eyes off them for one second.

[Senator]

71. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you

But the torture and war crimes are ongoing. They have not been stopped. So I'm not sure what you mean by "ever happen again."

Even if it could be magically ended today, the only mechanism by which to stop it from "happening again" is to prosecute the known perpetrators to the fullest extent of domestic and international law. Then to undo every governmental act possible that they've undertaken under the guise of legitimacy.

The same goes for offenses against our Constitution, like "rule by signing statement" and unlawful acts rationalized by the euphemism "unitary executive theory." These are not complex legal issues. They are the regime openly stating that the American People, neither through Congress nor the justice system, can curtail their behavior.

They are arrogating sovereignty unto themselves. In a democracy, as opposed to a monarchy or fascist state, that is no less than treason. Which is why euphemistic statements from our "leadership," like the administration should "return to the law" (Feingold), make them sound delusional. They admit the reality, yet deny any responsibility to act upon it.

But it is they who are being short sighted. They're failure to raise objection, from the crimes of Reagan-Bush -- to the 2 Stolen Elections -- to ongoing war crimes, is what has allowed the neofascists to prosper.

--

[guruoo]

72. OK, then we're in agreement regarding impeachment n/t

[cool user name]

21. Kicking and screaming ...

[calimary]

25. Me, too! DUer bleever had a great quote that I am delighted to add in

here, summing up the benefit of letting the investigations begin: "Boil the frog starting with room-temperature water."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2723350#2729173

We need to build a case, and a good one, because we also NEED to IMPEACH. It just needs to be done. PERIOD. It IS an imperative - unless our laws and our Constitution really do mean nothing.

[cool user name]

51. It IS Imperative!

[slaveplanet]

22. Exactly

Impeachment, of course, is a matter of Constitutional law, not personal discretion on the part of individual lawmakers.

Saying it's "off the table" borders on criminality in itself.

[upi402]

28. k/r

Good points. I wonder if it's timing we are talking about? (well, not 'WE' but...)

[Skinner]

30. This is not correct.

It is true that impeachment is in the Constitution, so yes, it is a "matter of Constitutional law." But that doesn't mean that the Congress is required to do it.

Impeachment is not a matter of "law enforcement," as you describe it. If someone robs your house, the police and the rest of the criminal justice system are required to hold that person accountable. But unlike the criminal prosecution of the person who robbed your house, impeachment *is* open to the discretion of the Congress.

Impeachment is a *political* process. The Framers designed it to be that way.

Unlike normal criminal trials, under impeachment the jury does not consist of regular citizens. Instead, the jurors are members of the United States Senate. Unlike normal criminal trials, the decision to "prosecute" lies with the House of Representatives. If the president is successfully impeached, the punishment is not jail time or fines or any other punishment that would be recognized as part of our criminal justice system. The punishment for a president who is successfully impeached is removal from office.

If the Framers had wanted impeachment to be the same as a criminal trial, they would not have designed it this way. They deliberately made it political. So the decision whether or not to impeach is by its very nature a political decision.

Furthermore, everyone knows that impeachment is discretionary -- even the people wrote those essays. The fact that we are even discussing whether or not Congress should impeach makes clear that we all know the ultimate decision rests with them. If the House of Representatives chooses not to impeach, regular citizens do not have the ability to take them to court to compel them to do it or to punish them. Voters can vote them out if they don't like their decision (also a political process), but they can't legally force Congress to impeach.

[Blackhatjack]

32. The "obligation' to bring impeachment lies in the "Oath to Defend the Constitution"

You are correct in your recitation of the procedure for bringing impeachment proceedings, and the process required to "remove" a sitting President.

However, every member of Congress is sworn into office under an oath that they will "protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States from all threats.

Constitutional scholars argue over whether the bringing of impeachment proceedings may be "required" because there is no affirmative duty set out in the Constitution to do so. However, the argument that makes the most sense is that a sitting President who engages in conduct that arises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" has committed an offense(s) against his country and the Constitution he is duty bound under oath to protect and uphold. Therefore the duty of the members of the House to protect the country and its Constitution includes an "obligation" to bring impeachment proceedings when those circumstances arise.

The decision of House members to forgo instituting 'impeachment proceedings' solely for political reasons is as repugnant as the members of the Senate voting not to remove an impeached President for political reasons, even though there is a presentation of incontrovertible proof that the impeached President engaged in committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Skinner]

37. The oath does not require a specific course of action to defend the Constitution.

I would argue that engaging in a highly unpopular impeachment effort that dooms us to one term of Congressional control is hardly defending the Constitution at all. It is merely deferring the destruction of the Constitution for two years.

You can argue all you like that members of Congress have a moral obligation to impeach. I would disagree with you, but you would still be articulating a valid point of view. But the suggestion that Congress has a legal or Constitutional obligation to impeach is simply false. If they choose not to impeach, nobody -- not even the Supreme Court -- can compel them to do it.

[happydreams]

41. You don't believe that Congress has a moral obligation to impeach?

I'm not sure I read you right here.

[Blackhatjack]

45. Impeachment is a legal mechanism, and morality does not enter into it...

Not all acts that are legal are "moral"

For example, corporations can take certain "legal" actions to avoid paying taxes they owe, which may not be "moral" but they are "legal."

Conversely, not all "moral" acts are legal.

For example, civil disobedience acts that brought about the civil rights movement were almost always illegal, but today you would be hard pressed to find someone who believes they were "immoral."

The mechanism of impeachment in the House does not rest upon a determination that conduct of the President falls below a moral standard. It is strictly a legal standard. Does it rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors?" In many cases, conduct that is criminal is also not moral, but that isn't always the case.

[happydreams]

46. That was not my question. Please re-read.

[Skinner]

50. You read me right.

At this point, I don't think Congress has a moral obligation to impeach Bush.

Certainly, they would be morally justified in doing it. But I do not believe they have a moral obligation to do so. They have at their disposal plenty of other means to defend the Constitution.

[happydreams]

53. Ok. In your view what action by Bush would warrant

a moral obligation as opposed to the less stringent moral justification?

[Blackhatjack]

44. There is no affirmative "duty" included in the Constituton because...

... the Legislative Branch of government under the Constitution "shares" power along with the Executive and Judicial Branches.

The nut of the issue comes down to what do the other two branches of government do when one acts in direct contravention of the Constitutional duties imposed upon it? This issue came to a head with the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, in which the United States Supreme Court determined that the US Supreme Court is the final authority on deciding what laws mean and how they are to be interpreted. It is still acknowledged as controlling legal precedent today.

Where a legal duty is imposed there must be a remedy for acts that are done in contravention of that duty, referred to as acts of commission. Most criminal laws address acts of commission. However, where a legal duty is imposed and one who is charged to act to protect or defend others, or the institution granting that authority, the failure to do so is referred to as an act of omission. There are criminal and civil laws that punish a failure to act when a person has a duty to act.

The framers of the Constitution anticipated there would be attempts by one of the branches of government to attain a position of superiority over one or both of the other two branches of government. Therefore, in regard to the power to impeach a President in the House and remove him by trial and order of the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the framers provided a mechanism to counter the executive's power grab and to counter a criminal or corrupt sitting President without destroying the sharing of power among the three branches.

While there may be political motivations that drive some members of Congress to institute impeachment proceedings in the House, and trial in the Senate, the duty to do same is apolitical.

Two quick examples: First a President that communicates to our enemies our nuclear launch codes, or the identities of our spies undercover abroad, has certainly engaged in criminal conduct that contravenes his duties under the Constitution. A member of Congress cannot turn their back and refuse to act when presented with incontrovertible evidence of these crimes, and if he/she does so they have violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Since a President may not be tried for criminal offenses while in office, impeachment is the only alternative available to protect the Constitution and the People.

Second, the President sends over a signed executive order to the House and Senate which says the Executive Branch will no longer recognize the Laws passed by Congress as effective unless the President determines that it does not contravene his Unitary theory of Executive Power, and that at the time the executive order was signed the Executive Branch will no longer recognize the opinions of the Judicial Branch as the final authority on interpreting any law passed by Congress. In that case, a member of the House would be 'promoting' the destruction of the Constitution by failing to protect the specific Constitutional mandate of shared power among three branches if he/she simply decided not to institute impeachment proceedings. The taking of the oath of office is a serious matter. Failure to live up to the oath subjects a member to discipline and possible expulsion.

With the President's signing statements and his comments that the Supreme Court is just wrong, we are perilously close to this second scenario that would require Congressional and Judicial acts of commission.

So really the duty to impeach is not a political duty, even though the use of impeachment proceedings for political purposes may occur - as was the case with Clinton.

We do not have to agree on this in theory, since scholars who have devoted their life to the law disagree on the mechanics and duties.

We do have to agree that Constitutional government requires that members of Congress act in the face of a direct attack on the Constitution --and that is why it is in the oath of office they take. Whether you call that a "duty" or not makes little difference.

[Skinner]

48. The question at hand is whether impeachment is at the discretion of the Congress.

This thread is called "Bottom line: Impeachment is not discretionary." I am arguing that this is incorrect. Impeachment undoubtedly *is* discretionary.

You are correct that whether it is called a "duty" or not makes little difference. The fact remains that Impeachment occurs at the discretion of the Congress.

The example you site (president handing over nuclear launch codes to our enemies) is extreme, and I'm not sure it helps us get to the truth in this particular case. In an extreme example like this, I think it is obvious that Congress would have a moral obligation to impeach. I might even go so far as to admit that there exists a kind-of constitutional obligation, in the sense that their failure to act would probably precipitate the end of the Constitution and the end of this country as we know it. But even in this extreme example, Congress *still* has the discretion to decide whether or not to impeach. I find it incredibly hard to imagine that they would not exercise their right to impeach under such grave circumstances. They would be traitors if they chose not to. But the choice whether to impeach or not would ultimately be their own. (To flesh out the "end of the country as we know it" scenario: If such a thing were to happen, we would find ourselves in a very serious constitutional crisis, in which right-thinking citizens would recognize that their government had been taken over by traitors, with no apparent legal mechanism at their disposal to do anything about it -- until the next election, if there were a next election. Under that kind of extreme crisis, I think anything would be possible, including remedies that are not sanctioned by the constitution -- such as a military coup.)

To be clear: I don't think the current situation is anywhere near the extreme example you have proposed, and a failure by Congress to impeach in this case will not precipitate any sort of constitutional crisis at all.

[Blackhatjack]

54. Impeachment is always 'discretionary' but may be 'obligatory'

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: dis·cre·tion
Pronunciation: dis-'kre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the quality of being discreet : CIRCUMSPECTION; especially : cautious reserve in speech
2 : ability to make responsible decisions
3 a : individual choice or judgment <left the decision to his discretion> b : power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds <reached the age of discretion>
4 : the result of separating or distinguishing

In this usage, 3(b) seems to be the appropriate definition "power of free decision or latitude of choice WITHIN CERTAIN LEGAL BOUNDS" (emphasis added).

It may be assumed that outside of certain legal bounds it is not discretionary, which would be obligatory.

The first example I gave was extreme to make the point in an easy to understand way. The second example I gave was more nuanced, but closer to the situation we face today. Both apply.

As an "officer of the court" I took substantially the same oath that a Congressman takes when he/she is sworn into office, which includes the affirmative duty "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," as well as the Constitution of my own state. There are penalties if I fail to comply with that portion of the oath. If my failure to comply with that oath is a result of nonaction on my part when I am duty bound to act, then I may be removed from my position and disbarred.

There are legal scholars that argue both ways on the issue of whether use of the 'impeachment' mechanism is a duty. However, most would agree that the circumstances can arise in which use of the 'impeachment' mechanism is obligatory.

I happen to believe there are circumstances under which the legal boundaries may be breached, and impeachment is obligatory --not discretionary. However, I take the 'morality' issue out of the analysis, since we are a nation of laws. If morality becomes our standard, then religious beliefs as the basis for decisionmaking cannot be far behind.

[Orsino]

49. Not impeaching is not illegal, sure, but...

...impeachment and censure are the only avenues open for corrective action, executive privilege being what it is. A prosecutor doesn't always *have* to bring criminal charges, either, but it's his only means of checking criminal behavior.

Given a misbehaving president, impeachment is a moral imperative for any Congress not corrupt or asleep at the wheel. Given the crimes of this president, their duty is clear--a moral one, not a legal one, since they cannot sic law enforcement on *.

[earth mom]

31. K & R!

:kick:

[BlooInBloo]

33. I've said this for awhile to the fearful cowardly "off the table" DUers.

[Jacobin]

34. After reading what Bush* just said in Viet Nam

I agree that he needs to be out of the white house, because he has utterly and completely lost what little of his fucking mind that he might have once had.

If I were a republican, I'd want him GONE ,like RIGHT FUCKING NOW

[porphyrian]

35. I'll kick that again. - n/t

[Individualist]

38. Investigate! Impeach! Imprison!

Justice and morality demand it.

[Cocoa]

39. I question Truthout's grasp of constitutional law

I guess that they could provide a link to an authoritative legal source that says that impeachment is mandatory. Or maybe an example where some legislative body was forced by a court to impeach someone. Or even an example of a court that heard such a case.

[happydreams]

40. K&R!

[earth mom]

42. FYI-Congress can be considered "Accessories After The Fact".

if they do not Impeach.

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT - Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

[helderheid]

43. This may be the only way we can restore trust around the world. n/t

[librechik]

47. oh yeah.

we must--it's like not prosecuting molestors in positions of power over children. Just cuz you like the person, or you respect the job they've done or whatever. When the crime is revealed, justice and the people have no choice.

[Ilsa]

52. Rep. Sheila Sekula-Gibbs: "I have a duty to investigate." nt

[bigriver]

57. And It Must Proceed In the Next 24 Business Hours!!

Hughhh!!!!

[guruoo]

70. Now, now...

:rofl:

[lonestarnot]

58. All issues for impeachment a given, but here's my but ... but.. but...

In lawsuits, the deep pockets sometimes or almost always use time as a factor to manage to kill off the little guys. Time. 2 years, that's what the fucker has left. This factor is keeping me on the fence.

[KharmaTrain]

59. Impeachment Is A Political, Not Legal Act...

By spending all the effort in going after boooosh and chenney with an Impeachment that will polarize the country, it ignores a lot of the criminality that has gone on. By focusing on just one area like Iraq, you prevent investigating things like Katrina or the oil scams or the illegal wiretapping and all the underlings who enabled and abeted in these crimes. Running a Judiciary investigation surely would conflict with any others and cut the legs off of the work Waxman is talking about doing...which is getting at the true sources of corruption, not just the figureheads.

While Impeachment may feel good, it steals the oxygen from the real goal most who favor this act really desire...justice. Impeachment just sends boooshie boy back to Texas and little more. I'm one who strongly favors letting Congressman Waxman take the lead on the investigation of corruption and exposing it bit by piece so that in '08 the electorate starts to get a clearer picture of what electing not just a Repugnican President by also a Repugnican congress means.

[lonestarnot]

60. Yes. This is the best way I think.

[KharmaTrain]

61. Drip Drip Drip Helped Us

Think about this, lonestarnot, a year ago DeLay was still riding roughshod in the House, Ney was hitting it big at the slots, the Dukestir was still afloat and Foley bought a new blackberry. One by one, each scandal took a little more wind and credibility out of the Repugnicans sails. It kept them on the defensive and forced the corporate media to focus attention on it. And these goons fell from favor on their own largess...they got so cocky and bold they thought they could get away with anything. Now, with subpoena power, we're going to be able to shake the trees and, in conjunction with on-going criminal investigations, will keep a parade of Repugnicans in and out of court over the next two years.

The one thing the '94 and '06 elections had in common was the people's tiring of the wide spread corruption they saw in Congress. My hope is by pushing investigations on various levels while working on passing some meaningful legislation (minimum wage, prescription drug reform and other popular items) the seats we almost got last time will be ours in '08 and help sweep the Repugnicans and especially the flying monkey right into the margins where they belong.

Cheers...

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

62. Let's get to the sweeping and forgo the dripping.

:hi: I'm a part of the instant gratification world. My bad.

[KharmaTrain]

64. I'd Rather See It In The Hague

I dream of Rummy, boooshie boy, chenney, gonzo, condi and all the other PNAC'ers in orange jump suits in the dock (in a cage would be an added bonus) having the world decide the proper justice here.

I'm greedy...I wanna take 'em all down.

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

67. Absolutely

fine by me! That's exactly what they deserve!

[DemonFighterLives]

65. This has been working well

I tend to flip-flop on the impeachment issue. I thought all along that impeachment would be a huge waste of time and little would come of it. The cronies and crooks just seem to roll back in.
On the other hand, handing dubby his ass on a platter is appealing. He has been the worst President ever and the record needs to reflect it.

On the other issue of being on the table or not. Dubya used to say on attacking Iraq- "there are no plans on the table". In his case it was a big lie. In Pelosi's case, she was probably thinking of the greater good of accomplishing something. As things come to light, impeachment can sure be thrown on the table, whether it is acted on or not. Tearing down the Cabal piece by piece may be the preferred method.

[lonestarnot]

68. I'm schizo on this issue too. Just want them to pay.

I've painted and hung impeach signs and have fought people over the issue, but I have slowly come to recognize it as the wrong move, at least for today, tomorrow I may paint another sign! :shrug:

[onenote]

63. of course its discretionary

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued in this case. But it means that it should be pursued only in the way most likely to produce the proper result.

Keep in mind that we have just completed an election campaign in which virtually none of our candidates made impeachment an issue or part of their platform and of the few that did, virtually none won their races. Investigations and oversight were made an issue in many campaigns and thus pursuing those efforts, as an end in themselves, is a valid first step. If they lead to impeachment, great. But at the start the stated goal of investigations and oversight should be to reveal the truth regarding the administrations policies and activities, not to facilitate impeachment.