Thoughts on Impeachment

[Time for change]

Since the election there has been much argument about impeachment on DU, and I must confess that I am having a hard time identifying what if any are the substantive differences between the “pro-impeachment” views and some of the “anti-impeachment” views. Indeed, it seems to me that perhaps the main differences are superficial and mainly a matter of appearance more than reality.

I will discuss that issue later, but first I will briefly summarize my view on the subject: Recognizing that “political reasons” seem to constitute the main reasons that DUers express “anti-impeachment” views, I believe that the need to impeach Bush and Cheney is too important to let those political reasons stand in the way. Thus, impeachment needs to proceed simply because it is the right thing to do. By “political reasons” I am referring to beliefs such as that proceeding with impeachment may jeopardize our chances to elect a Democratic President in 2008, that if elected a Democratic President may be impeached out of revenge, or that proceeding with impeachment may interfere with our ability to pass much needed legislation.

But please don’t misunderstand me on this. I am not disparaging “political considerations”, as we all recognize their importance and indeed I have written about them several times myself. And if someone were to turn my statement around to come back at me with something like “Electing a Democratic President in 2008 is too important to let impeachment stand in the way”, I must admit that I would have a difficult time responding to that, since I most certainly agree that electing a Democratic President in 2008 is extremely important. But the 2008 elections are two years away, and it seems to me that it often turns out to be the case that doing the right thing while throwing political considerations out the window turns out to have the best political consequences.


How do “anti-impeachment” views differ from “pro-impeachment” views on DU?

As an example, Skinner and Will Pitt have both expressed “anti-impeachment” views, in a sense, Skinner by saying that “moving quickly to impeach could do grave harm to our country” and Will Pitt by saying that impeachment will make it impossible to enact much needed legislation. But then they both qualify those statements by saying at the end of their discussion on impeachment, respectively, “My view is very simple: Investigations first, and then we can discuss impeachment” and “Investigations are and absolutely should be part of the laundry list of Democratic actions. If that leads to impeachment, so be it.”

The bottom line is that very few DUers are against investigations which may lead to impeachment, but yet many DUers nevertheless use language that sounds somewhat “anti-impeachment”. What I don’t understand is whether or not there are substantive differences between the opinions of those DUers and the opinions of the “pro-impeachment” DUers such as myself, or if the differences are only a matter of appearances.

Let me put it another way. Certainly the “pro-impeachment” DUers recognize that investigation must precede a vote on impeachment. So it seems to me that almost all of us (both “anti-impeachment” and “pro-impeachment”) are advocating investigations, followed by impeachment IF the investigations turn up …. what? Consequently, since there are few if any of us who harbor any doubt that investigations will turn up impeachable offenses, it is difficult for me to see a substantive difference between the two positions.

Which leads me to believe that perhaps the main difference between us is simply that those “anti-impeachment” DUers wish to emphasize that the investigations should not be identified as having a relationship to impeachment until we see what they show. If that’s the main difference, I can’t say that I disagree with that. I’m not sure. Personally, I would rather see impeachment “out there on the table and visible for all to see”, but if that’s going to hurt Democrats (which I’m not convinced of) then I agree that it would be best to keep talk of impeachment “off the table” until we see what the investigations turn up.

That being said, I’ll now say a few words about why I consider impeachment to be essential to our country.


Why I believe that impeachment is necessary

I’ll try not to be too repetitive, since this issue has already been covered in much detail by myself and others. H2O Man posted an excellent discussion on this recently, where he noted the need to investigate how the Bush administration manipulated us into the Iraq war, the substantial harm done to our country by virtue of our failure to investigate the crimes of the Reagan/Bush administration, and the fact that in writing our Constitution our Founding Fathers felt very strongly about the need to maintain a system of checks and balances in our government and to prevent the development of an “imperial Presidency”. The latter issue is very much in line with James Madison’s comments:

… Where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice.

What Madison is saying here is that our Constitution is subverted when our president attempts to usurp powers that are not given him in our Constitution. And as noted by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has been conducting impeachment “teach ins” throughout our country, that is exactly what George Bush has repeatedly done. By using over 800 signing statements to declare that he is not obligated to follow laws duly passed by Congress and by lying to Congress in order to obtain their permission to invade Iraq he has usurped the powers of Congress. And by declaring himself the sole arbiter of the fate of thousands of so-called “enemy combatants”, he has usurped the powers of our judiciary. As explained by CCR:

According to Justice Department figures, thousands of people throughout the United States were detained during the period after September 11, 2001. Many were held for months, provided with no access to lawyers, and were beaten while in custody. They were not formally charged and were literally “disappeared” in the sense that they were not allowed to communicate with the outside, and their family members did not know where they were held, or whether they were dead or alive. Out of the thousands of detainees, few were ultimately charged with any terrorism-related offenses….

The administration violated the law, failing to bring detainees before a judge for weeks and months. It thus grossly violated basic separation of powers principles by denying the judiciary any opportunity to review thousands of detentions…

The detainees at Guantanamo… were denied the right to challenge their detention in the courts for years until the administration’s position was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush…

Significantly, Rep. John Conyers has already conducted extensive investigations into what most people would consider impeachable offenses by the Bush administration (although he doesn’t use the word “impeachment” in his report). The resulting report, entitled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”, thoroughly documents numerous impeachable offenses with 354 pages and 1,401 references. It is also interesting to note that the crimes documented by Conyers overlap substantially with those documented by CCR. Conyers’ report includes the Bush administration’s lying to Congress about the need for war with Iraq, illegal domestic warrantless spying, and the abuse and torture of our detainees, all crimes covered by the CCR. The only differences are that Conyers’ report also covers retribution of the Bush administration against its political enemies such as Valerie Plame (which CCR doesn’t cover), and CCR addresses the failure of the Bush administration to enforce laws enacted by Congress (which Conyers’ report doesn’t cover.)


The bottom line

In my view, the bottom line is that we have a presidential administration that has repeatedly shown contempt for our Constitution and the laws of our country. Impeachment is the only remedy for that provided by our Constitution. Failure to proceed with impeachment, therefore, not only would allow the Bush administration to continue to harm our country but would also send the message that future presidential administrations could act likewise without fear of being held accountable.

What about the concern that, as happened with Bill Clinton’s impeachment, there may be a backlash against Democrats if they try to impeach? Well, it seems to me that we have to give the American people some credit for having some intelligence. The difference between the Clinton impeachment and an impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney is like the difference between night and day. The Clinton impeachment had no grounds in Constitutional law, and the most of the American public was able to ascertain that, which was why Clinton continued to maintain high approval ratings even during the height of his impeachment.

With regard to an impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, revenge is not the issue. Nor are political considerations the issue. The issue is simply whether or not a president and vice president have the right to ignore our Constitution and the laws of our country. As Democrats proceed with impeachment they need to make that crystal clear to the American people. But what if that is not evident to most American citizens? What if the American people suspect, with the substantial aid of our corporate news media, that Democrats are proceeding with impeachment for political reasons or for revenge? In that case, rather than following popular opinion, I believe that Democrats should work very hard to make a case for impeachment to the American people. A nation can only be as good as its people. If the American people cannot be taught to understand why a presidential administration must not be above the laws of the country that it is sworn to uphold, then there is very little hope for us, and we may as well go back to the days prior to the American Revolution, when we were under the rule of King George III.

[stonecoldsober]

1. Good post!

I believe that retroactive oversight is what is needed. There are several (actually more than several) things that need to be looked at, as the republican controlled congress ignored their oversight responibilities. These will require inquiry and interviews to understand what has truly transpired in the last 6 years. Of course, if impeachable offenses are proven to the public, I believe public opinion will demand impeachment, thereby letting the dems off the hook.

[Time for change]

9. Yes, that's a critical point - The Republican Congress ignored their

oversight responsibilities. That should be a major scandal in itself, in addition to all the crimes committed by the Bush administration.

The Democrats now must give the American people, as well as the corporate media, a lesson in how government is supposed to work.

[liberalmike27]

112. Sword of Damocles

The threat is worse than the impeachment. We now have a president and vice-president that knows it has done wrong, and is under the threat of impeachment. Democrats have the power to impeach, and the numbers. So, start legislating for middle and lower class Americans, who need help. If we see vetoes or close vote tie-breaks by Cheney, take one more step toward starting impeachment proceedings. Make them aware it is their option, though not in so many words outloud, but unspoken. Go along, or we will start impeachment. We can achieve a raise in the minimum wage, corrections to some of the programs, balancing the budget, perhaps even a change in the long-term erroneous strategy of wars without end.

If we get muddled down in hearings I suspect Democratic ratings will drop like a stone, just as Republicans lost support when they were impeaching Clinton, though it was for far less substantial stuff.

[pat_k]

137. Offenses already proven, and majority already wants impeachment . . .

. . .to be a priority in the new Congress. (Newsweek poll -- see http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Discussion section)

And the proofs that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution are summarized in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313">Post #94

[nebenaube]

2. If we don't impeach...

then the facsist's plan b kicks in and they just wait for their next chance to destroy the US. After all, they've waited three generations for this opportunity.

[Time for change]

81. One thing that made a big impression on me was Clinton's decis ion

not to investigate the Reagan/Bush administration for the Iran/Contra scandal, among other things. I like Bill Clinton, but I think that was a great big mistake. It certainly won him no friends among Republicans, the failure to make the American people aware of the crimes of the Reagan Bush administration has had dire consequences IMO.

[pat_k]

138. You've probably seen it, but " Hey, Democrats, Truth Matters!"

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm">Hey Democrats, Truth Matters! by Robert Parry made this point back in May. It's a great piece, worth revisting if you have seen it.

[Time for change]

140. I'm reading Parry's book, "Secrecy and Privilege"

IMO it should be required reading for high school students -- but unfortunately, we're a long ways from that.

[kenfrequed]

152. Good choice!

That article does a good job of kicking the struts out of any argument for "political expediency" Thanks for posting it!

[pat_k]

156. Thanks back at you -- for post #95. . .

. . . Assumptions that investigations will "naturally" lead to impeachment are a bit disturbing. If DC Dems continue to adhere to the "impeachment is off limits" edict, I hope the "natural" process occurs, but I have little hope that it would. More "facts" are not what is needed. (Denizen's of the "reality-based community" can never get enough facts, but different forces move the electorate.)

In any case, the message "Hey, come on everybody, let's 'wait and see'" isn't particularly inspiring.

[Patsy Stone]

3. You're right that there is little difference

But I saw it as a much more subtle line. We all agree that investigations have to happen, it's just a matter of when.

Some wanted the Dems to come out swinging, 8 o'clock in the morning on the day after the election, and declare that they were immediately beginning impeachment hearings.

Some understood why it couldn't be on the table for breakfast on Nov. 8, but it could be right over there in the file cabinet waiting. Investigations are imperative for so many reasons, and will probably lead the public to realize that he should be impeached, and maybe Cheney even more so.

Overall, I think it's more a timing and semantics argument more than a disagreement on the entire premise.

Excellent post!

[Time for change]

7. Thank you Patsy -- Timing and semantics

Yes, that's the way it seems to me. I hope that's right.

[pat_k]

139. "Off the table" was not just craven and immoral, it was completely unnecessary

When they refused to run on impeachment, they created a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2464173">horrible trap for themselves. That is water under the bridge, but Pelosi dug them in deeper with her wrong-headed "off the table" statement (no reason or justification, it's just off, period).

Even in the context of the DC bizzaro-world conventional wisdom Pelosi's craven and immoral "pledge" was completely unnecessary.

Throwing away the only weapon you have to defend against presidential abuse of power is "pre-emptive surrender." On behalf of the entire Democratic caucus, she declared their intent to be derelict in their duty to defend the Constitution.

Had she been asked whether the use of military force is off the table, and had answered as unequivocally, she would be just as guilty of betraying her oath. Use of force is always a weapon of last resort, but leaders never take the weapons we have made available for our defense "off the table."

All she had to do was point that out. Jan Schakowsky's answer should have served as the model for all of them.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/85997,CST-EDT-HUNT06.articleprint">Dem denials don't end talk of impeachment
October 6, 2006

. . .this response from Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who as chief deputy whip occupies a leadership position for Democrats:

"Whether the president has committed acts that meet the standard for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which constitute an impeachable offense, is not defined in the Constitution or in a statute. It is a determination made by the House of Representatives. To that end, I am a co-sponsor of . . . Conyers' resolution to authorize an investigation into whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Bush based on his manipulation of pre-war intelligence and use of torture."

"Impeachment proceedings are very serious and must never be used for political purposes," Schakowsky wrote. "However, that does not mean that they should never be used. They may be warranted in the case of President Bush in light of the extreme seriousness of the issues involved." She complained the GOP-controlled Congress has been derelict in conducting oversight of "an unprecedented expansion of presidential powers.". . .

[Patsy Stone]

158. I wasn't arguing for or against Nancy's actions.

The OP stated that there seemed to be two sides at DU arguing about impeachment, and that the argument was about whether to impeach. My point was that we were mostly agreed at DU that there should be impeachment, but it was timing (yesterday or next week) and semantics (do we call it "impeachment" or "investigations" -- which will lead to impeachment) argument more than a "right or wrong" argument.

In your post, you assume that no Dem wants to explore the crimes and find out exactly what to charge them with before drawing up the articles.

You also assumed in the OP you referenced that it would make the Dems look like they flip-flopped if they decided to pursue this at a later time. I submit this is incorrect because if, as we all expect, the investigations turn up evidence that disgusts the populace and makes them cry for impeachment, then being seen doing the people's bidding will not weaken them. How does finding out the facts and then acting on the findings make one weak? Not acting at that point, in my opinion, would make someone weak.

[pat_k]

166. We know all the necessary facts. We have known them for years. . .

. . .. There is nothing to investigate. Nothing to look for. Asserting that we need to investigate negates the case we have. It is a statment the countless citizens, elected bodies, and good government groups who are demanding impeachment are WRONG. It exonerates Bush of the charges they have brought against him. It is a delaying tactic -- an escape from duty that it extremely counterproductive; it is essentially a lie.

I dispute the OP assertion that the "pro" and "anti" forces agree; that it is just a matter of timing. Countless groups have drafted proven articles. There is no reconciling their demands that Congress take up those articles with those who say "investigate, we'll get there."

[Patsy Stone]

169. Are you aware that after the vote is taken in the House

on the decision to proceed that there are hearings, inquiries and investigations? That even if Nancy had walked in November 8th and demanded impeachment, there would still have to be a House Judiciary Committee investigation of alleged offenses and wrongdoing? Why does it matter, then, which comes first?

Besides, what if all those articles of impeachment "countless groups" have already written don't even begin to encompass the scope of the criminality? What if there is an even more egregious act not yet known due to lack of any oversight or sworn testimony against the cabal?

[pat_k]

171. One charge is enough. We have at least three for which we know . . .

all we need to make the case that Bush and Cheney pose an intolerable threat.

Investigation to determine the "full scope of their criminality" is for law enforcement. Prosecution of crimes for which there is sufficient evidence is for the the Courts, not Congress.

The House Judiciary Committee has traditionally been the committee that has taken up impeachment resolutions, but I would have to review House Rules to confirm whether or not they have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Regardless of which committee or committees would have jurisdiction, had she introduced the articles on Nov. 8th, it would have been assigned to committee(s), where it would have undoubtedly have sat until the term of the 109th Congress expired. The fact that the resolution wouldn't go anywhere shouldn't be a deterrent to introducing now (it serves as a declaration of intent), but you asserted that "there are hearings, inquiries and investigations?" This would not be the case in the current Congress.

When and if such articles are reintroduced in the 110th Congress, Democratic committee chairs are of course more likely to act.

There no set form for hearings. There is no need to seek "the scope of the criminality" -- in fact, it would be EXTREMELY counter-productive to do so.

Congressional investigation into their abuses are certainly required, but those investigations are independent of, and unnecessary for, impeachment.

And, as noted above, while Congress has a duty to determine the extent of damage and to root out and impeach office holders who conspired in the abuses, it is ultimately for the courts to exact justice.

Impeachment is a defensive act -- the goal is to remove officials who have proven themselves a threat to the Constitution with their abuses of power. Whether removal is achieved via conviction in the Senate or via resignation in response to the threat of impeachment/conviction doesn't matter.

Their Congressional oath to "support and defend" demands that they seek to remove the threat by the speediest means possible. As soon as they have sufficient evidence to make the case, duty requires that they vote the articles out. They have everything they need to make a powerful case right now. Hearings to review and make the case to the public would be appropriate, but to claim to need investigation unnecessarily delays and undercuts the case they have because calling for investigations is effectively an assertion that "we don't have a case."

If you are interested, the following post should clarify the arguments I am making:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313

From the threat of impeachment to removal via resignation or conviction by the Senate the possible scenarios are infinite. Some are discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2760627&mesg_id=2768192

[peacetalksforall]

4. Practicality. Political psychology. I think those who push to

impeach need to examine timing and expense. They need to examine which crime could be used to pursue. They need to figure out what other projects won't get done by the Judiciary Committee while they spend most of their time on the project. They need to study what was involved in impeaching Clinton and Nixon and make a comparison in complexity. Measurements are needed.

Remember, all they could get Clinton for was lying to cover up an affair. Just making a suggestion of which Bush admin crime to go after will take an ocean of time (unless someone has already done the work - say ... in a law class at some university.

Psychologically, there are many citizens who have already impeached the both of them in their heads. Many of the citizens will want our Congress to pursue plans to save our nation and reverse the damage. Everyday, we are reminded of the drastic reversal that is needed to keep from drowning, freezing, and suffering drought.

(An aside: The northern hemisphere is in bad shape. Even George and his Reverend friend are doing something about it - buying land in South America - exactly next to a grand water source that is high up and where the existing government loves George and the Rev. :o) )

Psychologically, the nation is in a very desperate state of affairs compared to its state when Clinton and Nixon were impeached. Psychologically, most of the nation was sickened by the Clinton impeachment and would probably vote against the concept of revenge. (Some Republicans have admitted that the Clinton impeachment was in revenge for Nixon while we know that it was also about assassinating his character to win an election and counter the successes he had in leadership - minus a few things).

Investigations should proceed and we should see where it goes while we learn about and track the international and national lawsuits.

He's already impeached in my mind, but I do want more information and I want it in the Congressional Records - from the investigations.... for now. Whether it leads to an impeachment that can be accomplished in two years without taking from the agenda to save us is an unknown for now.

[stonecoldsober]

6. Nixon was not impeached - he resigned.

[Mr_Spock]

14. ...because he was about to be impeached AND convicted and

removed from office. Technically you are correct, but we all know that he would have been impeached easily.

[elocs]

16. "Convicted" is the important part of the entire process and the reason Nixon resigned.

Impeachment=indictment, not conviction. How many DUers would be happy and satisfied if Bush is indicted, but not convicted and walking?

[Time for change]

85. I'm not sure what your point is by saying that

I would much rather see him convicted than impeached but not convicted. But that doesn't mean that I think that we should forego impeachment just because we're not certain of conviction. If the state goes after a murderer and they believe that the have the evidence to convict they don't hold back on the prosecution just becaue they're not certain of conviction. Once we have the evidence all lined up, I think we need to go for it.

[pat_k]

143. Failure to accuse = Exoneration = "Accessory After the Fact" War Criminal

Why would any Democrat who believed that they are destroying the institutions and principles we established in our Constitution be satisfied to exonerate by default?

With her impeachment "is off the table" Pelosi is covering for them. Since Members of Congress have taken an oath, if the do not accuse -- publicly and formally by introducing articles of impeachment -- they are handing the WH an unassailable argument (Tony Snow: "If the President or Vice President's actions violated the Constitution in any way, Members of Congress, who are sworn to defend the Constitution, would be pursing impeachment. Not only are they NOT pursuing impeachment (not one member has introduced articles) they have taken it off the table. Those charges come from the looney left.")

Of all the rationalizations for inaction, some form of "it won't happen, so shut up" is perhaps the most insidious. Failing to fight because "it's futile" is a self-defeating prophesy. The things worth fighting for will never happen if nobody takes up the fight. Fortunately for the nation, the question for Members of Congress is not "will we win?" The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

If you told people who are fighting to eradicate AIDS or poverty or hunger that "it won't happen, so shut up" I can't imagine you would expect -- or even want -- any of them to listen to you.

[pat_k]

142. What do you base your assumption that the impeachment of Bush. . .

. . .would be much different? I have made the case that it could http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2757561">easily play out in a very similar way. On the other side, I have seen nothing but assumptions of impossibility.

As I point out in one of the posts I referenced http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569">. . .Top five winning Habits

. . .claiming to "know" the outcome isn't "realism" -- it is not rational to believe in our own omniscience. . .

Given that it could go either way, why would we choose the morally repugnant path?

We all have a choice: the right side of history or the wrong side. Win or lose.

History is a harsh judge. When we look back at the times that evil has won, the "winners" disgust us and we hold the ones who stood on the sidelines because they believed "We can't win this one so we'd better shut up" in contempt.

At our founding, some who claimed to "hate" slavery were nonetheless complicit in the morally indefensible "compromise" that allowed our fellow human beings to be enslaved in the United States. Undoubtedly many believed they "couldn't win" if they drew a line in the sand and so did not draw the line.

We may never stop paying the price for that horrible compromise.

We face another such defining turning point.

[loyalsister]

8. I have a question

Would Nixon have had more Republican defenders if not for Vietnam which was still going on?
Has anyone every asked that question before?
I think it is important.
When it comes to the public's consciousness, a war time impeachment is an animal total different from the Clinton's impeachment that took place during peace and prosperity.

[peacetalksforall]

15. I believe the people who counted in working for the impeachment

of Nixon were more motivated by the disregard and violations of the public office. The ones who took the lead had breached law on their mind. Support came first from those who understood what the breached law meant. Breached law seemed to mean more to the citizens back then (did more people understand and were more interested?). It was probably all helped along by the war lies and citizens who were waking up. (Partly because back then the media did their job and explained it without bias, omission, avoidance, delusion, court jestering.)

In the following thirty years, the right wing has constantly worked towards and been successful at getting their lawyers and judges in place - to a point where the law is becoming the right wing new law. Disregarding Congress, the same people set up a secret sub-government to go commerical in trade of guns, hostages, and drugs during Iran-Contra? They got off easy. And rose again.

Few really thought that the USSR was going to invade us from Vietnam and the issue of why we were there became more fuzzy in their minds. But, it seemed constitutional law was more on their minds for Nixon.

In the following thirty years, the right wing perfected their creation of enemies and became even better at framing to the point where Congress and even Congressional lawyers are much less bold for fear of losing votes by a citizenry who is obsessed by invasion. All by the same Nixon, Iran-Contra people.

I'm not sure, but I think it was law first and war second or third for Nixon.

[AntiFascist]

69. If you really understand what was behind the impeachment of Nixon...

it could well have been Bush Sr. and other future neocon types who saw value in continuing the dispute between mainland China and Taiwan. If Nixon had stayed in office it could have jeopardized the militarization of China (due to his making inroads in the Chinese peace process) which otherwise led to China manufacturing massive amounts of weapons, very cheaply, that were used in arming Iran and others. The people pulling the strings back then are likely still "pulling the strings."

[loyalsister]

75. Did you read and fully understand my question?

The thing that ultimately happened is impeachment was avoided. We were also involved in a war.
Is it not possible that there was a relationship?
The issue of why we were there is not it in this question. The fact of the matter is we were and much of the citezenry may have still felt obligated to support the president because that's what you do "in a time of war."
Bottom line an average citizen (who does not comb through every fine detail of a presidency) may not feel comfortable with impeachment during a war. Even when it was Nixon. In that case, does any representative who votes for it lose their seat next time? I am asking because I have family members who hate Bush but would not go along with impeachment. My mom was a military wife for awhile and picked up brainwashing from my dad that you do not go against the president in a time of war.

People here do not want to acknowledge that they are loyalists who believe that they and only they have the truth as opposed to an assesment of various facts. The final analysis could be that impeachment is not constitutionally appropriate because these facts, assesment and explanation are not all there is.

[Time for change]

77. My opinion on that

I don't think that the war had anything to do with Nixon not being impeached. By the time that impeachment hearings against Nixon were held, the Vietnam were was very unpopular among the American citizenry. Nixon's approval ratings, I believe, were even lower than Bush's are now. That's explains at least part of the reason why so many Republicans were turning against Nixon, and there seems to be very little doubt that Nixon would have been impeached if he had not resigned. In fact, he probably would have been convicted in the Senate as well. And that is almost certainly why he resigned.

[pat_k]

146. Defense of the Constitution by removing the threat was achieved. . .

. . .the goal is not to convict to "exact justice" the consequence of a guilty verdict in the Senate is removal. Resignation in response to the threat of impeachment is a successful outcome -- the intolerable threat is removed. The Constitution is defended.

Prosecution, conviction, and punishment is for the courts, not Congress.

The best outcome for us would be for Bush and Cheney to choose the resignation "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2759055">exit strategy" -- as they pursue impeachment, it is the resignation of Bush and Cheney that they must be pushing for in public and behind the scenes. This is how they make it clear that the impeachment is not about partisanship or revenge.

The Bush administration is an albatross to the Republican Party and Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing his power to nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

[pat_k]

144. Actually, that is easily turned. . .

. . . Perhaps things are beyond all help, but one thing is for sure. The United States is incapable of helping to end the conflict and chaos that is spreading inhumanity and destroying lives in the Middle East if we leave governing power in the hands of the men who are responsible for the horrors. Door that are closed to the lawless war criminals would be opened to a legitimate American President.

The American people have spoken. They think Dems -- or new leadership of any kind -- can more effectively deal with Iraq. As long as the executive branch is in the hands of the men who terrorized the nation into war with threats of mushroom clouds in 45 minutes, the incompetence and hatred of Bush's United States will continue.

When the threat of impeachment becomes real, Republicans will be VERY motivated to keep the WH in Republican hands by using the "BushCheney resignation exit strategy" to escape impeachment.

Members of Congress need to make it clear to the WH that they will impeach if they must, but that they want the nation to be CRYSTAL clear that there is nothing partisan about rescuing our Constitution from Bush and Cheney's abuses, therefore they fervently hope Bush and Cheney will choose to keep the WH in Republican hands as follows:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed and therefore must meet with our approval (through the people we elected to represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress who recognize that rescuing our Constitution requires the removal of Bush and Cheney need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this (and they need to actually BE sincere, so they had better give the moral principles long hard thought).

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed by force, then the succession We the People established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH is also a way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

[Time for change]

82. Yes, we need to consider all of those things

In the end, our investigation of the Bush administration crimes, along with impeachment, should not be done for revenge, but mainly in order to make it clear that our country is based on our Constitution and the rule of law. And I think it's fair to say that John Conyers has already taken a giant step in the right direction with his investigations leading to his report, "The Constitution in Crisis", which I mention in the OP.

[pat_k]

141. For crimes . .

. . .see the "Three criminal conspiracies committed in plain sight" (and the paragraph that precedes it, in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313">irreconcilable differences.

Events cannot be known until they are behind us. The possibilities at each juncture are infinite. There no more reason to believe the removing them from office via impeachment (or resignation in response to the threat of impeachment) will be "long and expensive" than to believe it will move with lightening speed (discussed in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2757561">Post #113).

Even if I accepted the assumption that it would be "long and expensive," defending the Constitution and upholding the principle of consent trump. The nation has been forced to endure the length and expense of the Iraq war, they can certainly endure the impeachment Bush and Cheney -- men who terrorized them into waging that war. No matter how lengthy and expensive, impeachment will not cost the lives and limbs of thousands. In fact, the faster they are out, the sooner we end torture and have a shot at doing anything positive. Doors of opportunity are closed to Bush and Cheney that would be open to a legitimate American President.

I will never accept the excuse that a recount of the votes in an election would be "too long and expensive." Likewise, I will never accept the notion that Congress shouldn't fight to impeach Bush and Cheney -- i.e., take the massive power of the American presidency out of the hands of lawless men who have abused their power to enrich and force the will of their tiny faction on the rest of us -- because "too long and expensive."

[peacetalksforall]

153. Your right about taking the time for the vote. But, there is only two

years for an impeachment. It just seems impossible to meet that deadline. Unless a President or VP does not have to be a sitting P or VP.

Yes, our Constitution is worth the impeaching, but can it be done on a practical level.

That's all I'm saying - it all comes down to practicality and the psychology.

I would be thrilled if in the future I knew they whad both been impeached and that the impeachment sailed through the Congress and Senate in one (to even one and a half) year(s).

I think those pushing for it should research how long it would take just as I should be researching how fast it could be done before fighting for one or the other.

[pat_k]

155. There is not set sequence of events. . .

. . .it could actually move from the introduction of articles to removal (resignation) very fast.

I describe some of reasons it could go very fast in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2757561

[calimary]

5. Couldn't agree with you more!

But then again, I'm one of those dreaded pro-IMPEACHMENT advocates. After the investigations build our case, of course. But it's something we simply MUST do if we really believe in the Constitution (which the schmuck swore, twice on a Bible, to PRESERVE, protect and defend), the rule of law, and the freedom our Founders and their colleagues died for - in their defiance of a rogue leader.

[pat_k]

148. Powerful case already made. No investigation required.

. . .calling for "investigations" is effectively an assertion that "we don't have a case" -- which is counter-productive.

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313">Post #94

• Assumption 5 -- Everything necessary to unequivocally prove at least three of the charges is available in the public record. These charges are described in "Three criminal conspiracies committed in plain sight" below.


• Assumption 6 -- Any one of the crimes described in "Three criminal conspiracies committed in plain sight" is all that is needed to conclude that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution.

. . .

I've summarized my "top three" in the following section, but there are so many crimes to choose from and there is so much outrage percolating out here, it doesn't really matter which charges they decide are the most powerful. Keeping it simple should be the guiding principle. The crimes that don't end up in the articles will always be part of public debate and criminal prosecution of those crimes must follow, but you don't need "everything" to get Bush and Cheney out of there. (People were happy to see Capone convicted on tax evasion. Knowledge of "uncharged" crimes colors judgment. While this is to be avoided at all costs in a criminal trial, this is a political process in which there no such prohibition.)

Three criminal conspiracies committed in plain sight

1. Bush and Cheney did not simply "lie" the nation into war -- they terrorized us with threats of "Mushroom Clouds over our cities in 45 minutes."
   
   Whether or not the White House "knew" that the "16 words" were a fantasy, no amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years.
   
   When Bush and Cheney and their minions threatened the nation with "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" they knew they were making the most colossal bomb threat in our history.



2. Bush's criminal surveillance of Americans without warrants continues. The unconstitutional claim that they have a "get out of jail" free card (unitary authoritarian power) is laughable, and they know it. If they actually believed their own claims they would not currently be mounting a final, desperate push to "make it legal."



3. When the Supreme Court ruled that the operations and procedures ordered by the White House and implemented at Gitmo violated Geneva, they found Bush, Cheney, and those who colluded in the violations to be War Criminals.

[Annces]

10. Agree

This is not ordinary politics. This is a fight for our lives.

How would you like it if you woke up to find out DU was banned for treasonous activity and political discussions were a threat to the state? Bush and Cheney would love that.

I wish people like Bill Clinton would speak out on the danger of Bush2 in a similar way that Carter is. Politicians get so used to playing the game of politics, they themselves become part of the problem.

Citizens are not politicians. And why should we act like them.

[Time for change]

48. I agree that this is a fight for our lives

Or more precisely, the continued existence of our democracy as well.

And I agree that it would be good if people like Bill Clinton spoke out more. I love the way that Carter has spoken of the immorality of how our administration treats its prisoners. And Al Gore is really coming on strong now too.

There is a lot to like about Clinton, but he really should not have let the Reagan administration off the hook with regard to Iran-Contra, etc. I believe that that did a great deal of damage.

[onenote]

11. why investigations should not be tied to impeachment

Yours is one of the most thoughtful posts I've seen on the impeachment debate here at DU and you have identified the key issue separating the two sides of the debate: should investigations be directly tied to impeachment or should the investigations begin as an end unto themselves and if they lead to impeachment, great.

I strongly believe that the latter course is the correct one for the following reason. We just completed 468 elections, including every seat in the House, and impeachment was not a campaign issue or part of the platform in only a tiny number of those campaigns and virtually no candidate that made impeachment part of their platform won election. However, investigations and greater oversight of the administration was part of the platform of a great many candidates.

Under the circumstances, the appropriate course, imo, is to begin investigations as an end to themselves. If our candidates were unwilling/unable to talk about impeachment two weeks ago while running for office, they should not be making it the issue now. The issue should be what they campaigned on -- oversight and investigation and we can let those efforts lead where they lead.

[Time for change]

39. Thank you onenote -- I see your point and I tend to agree with it

The thing that I can't get past is that I can't see investigations NOT leading to impeachment, knowing what we know about this administration. So, I just hope that as investigations proceed that our Democratic leaders keep the possibility of impeachment wide wide open in their minds -- whether impeachment be officially "off the table" or on.

Also, I would be very interested to hear what the Center for Constitutional Rights would have to say about this discussion, since attending their teach-in helped to push me towards a "pro-impeachment" point of view. They were (and I'm sure still are) pushing impeachment very hard and felt that it should proceed well before the 06 elections. Indeed, they said that putting impeachment propositions on local ballots would substantially increase Democratic turnout. Therefore, I would be very interested to know how Democratic turnout fared in districts where impeachment was on the ballot.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Who Said Not To Investigate? But Impeachment Detracts From That

Impeachment is a political, not a criminal act. Throwing booosh and cheney out and trying to focus on a few charges, it prevents the investigation of a wide range of this regime's crimes. Focusing on Iraq, for example, detracts attention and resources from digging into the "energy task force" or Katrina or illegal wiretapping and so on...plus it allows the underlings to squirm free as well instead of having to be accountable for their crimes.

I strongly support letting Congressman Waxman loose...letting him dig at many levels and expose the wide range of corruption this regime and its Repugnican enablers have created and make it obvious to all the lengths and depths of the corruption. It wasn't just booosh and cheney, it's in virtually every cabinet department and into the congress. An impeachment also would impede on-going investigations and play into the GOOP meme that we're out for vengence, not for change.

One of the biggest factors in our wins this year was the on-going drip, drip, drip of Repugnican scandals. It got many voters mad and that swung a lot of moderates and independents our way. If we continue to dig up the muck...and there's plenty of it, we can accomplish several important goals that will serve many in the long term rather than something that feels good in the short term.

[Time for change]

83. I don't see why impeachment can't be the culmination of many of

the investigations that you speak of. I don't see how that would prevent any or those investigations.

[pat_k]

99. We have a clear and simple case. "Investigations" undermine that case. . .

First, the notion that we need to investigate is an assertion that "we don't have a case" (which is a lie, we do have a VERY POWERFUL case and we know absolutely everything we need to know to make it).

Second, findings from dozens of investigations are FAR more likely to hinder and mire any efforts to impeach than to help.

I talk about this in post #94 "Irreconcilable differences"

[pat_k]

98. "Throwing them out" = "Rescue the Constitution"

As you note, the case for impeachment is a very specific one. But the Congressional oath is to protect and defend the Constitution. Just as a cop is duty-bound to protect the public by pulling over and "taking the keys" from a drunk driver; Members of Congress are duty-bound to protect the Constitution by "taking the keys" from officials who are drunk with power.

Given the massive power of the American presidency, and the massive damage that power can do, the duty to remove Bush and Cheney trumps all else.

Investigations to determine the damage done and to root out co-conspirators can follow the impeachment of Bush and Cheney (or can go forward in parallel).

Ultimately, prosecution and punishment is for the courts, both here and at the Hague, not Congress.

[KharmaTrain]

104. Very Much In Agreement About The Hague

That's where the true justice is to be done and my hopes are the forthcoming investigations will be the basis of such a future prosecution...and where all the politics is removed and the naked agression can be in full view.

I also agree that booosh and cheney have used the Constitution like toilet paper. Reality says this regime will play out the clock...stonewall, invoke executive privilidge, run to friendly courts and before you know it, November, 2008 will be here. Also, while there may be enough votes in the House...I'd dare say that there would be plenty of skittish Democrats would make it a very close vote...and then there's no way it would muster the 67 votes in the Senate. In the meantime, the corporate media would pile on Democrats as being vindictive turning it into a personality contest...in the end it would be a futile waste of time that could easily backfire in the '08 elections and seriously threaten the Democratic majorities. The end result could be 8 more years of a McCain or some other right wing hack with majorities in both houses. Be assured then any further investigations would wither.

If we lived in a fair world where we could get a true Impeachment, then it's our duty to push for it, but it's not gonna happen. I'd rather be practical and drain the swamp...clean out the whole rat's nest and increase the Democratic majorities...making it possible for more and more Progressive candidates and legislation to move the country forward and deal with issues that make a difference. Let the historians be the political judge of this regime...I suspect they won't be very kind.

[pat_k]

113. Failure to "push for it" = exoneration

Hopes or fears about what could happen in the Senate have no place in the decision to impeach.

To return to the law enforcement analogy, if an on-duty patrol sees a driver who is all over the road, they do not have the option of not pursuing and attempting to apprehend, their duty demands that they do their best to get that driver off the road.

If the police followed Pelosi's example, they wouldn't get many drunk drivers off the road. (Shhhh! Don't turn on the siren. He might hear us! Oh, darn. He mowed down another pedestrian. Let's call off the pursuit and see if we can get a new light installed at that intersection.)

Since Members of Congress have taken an oath, if the do not accuse -- publicly and formally by introducing articles of impeachment -- they are handing the WH an unassailable argument (Tony Snow: "If the President or Vice President's actions violated the Constitution in any way, Members of Congress, who are sworn to defend the Constitution, would be pursing impeachment. Not only are they NOT pursuing impeachment (not one member has introduced articles) they have taken it off the table. Those charges come from the looney left.")

If Members of the House believe Bush and Cheney are abusing their power and violating the Constitution, they have just one duty: accuse.

It doesn't matter if Members of Congress don't think they can get the votes to convict in the Senate. It may never Get There. Events could unfold with lightening speed. Simply getting serious about impeachment is likely to be enough for Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy" that keeps the WH in Republican hands -- that is, Cheney resigns, Bush nominates a replacement that both the Senate and the House are willing to confirm; Bush resigns, VP becomes P and nominates their own VP. (Bush is an albatross they may be more than happy to throw Bush and Cheney over the cliff, particularly if the risk of NOT throwing them is President Pelosi.)

And if it does go to the Senate, I wouldn't be so pessimistic about getting them convicted. Public reaction is a powerful driving force. Even with the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda coming from the establishment -- both Dems and Repubs -- Newsweek found that 51% want impeachment to be a priority, and only 44% believe "it should not be done." If they get serious about impeachment, the accusations will be the number 1 topic of public debate. The 51% is almost guaranteed to shoot up to more than 60% overnight. (For more on this, see the discussion in http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Results on Impeachment.

Warner, McCain, and Graham have already stood publicly against the "War Criminals Protection Act." Collins stood with them. Arlen Specter has already publicly scoffed at the "defenses" offered to the illegal spying. The remaining Senators I consider "rational" are Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar. And beyond that is a barrel full of the swing-staters (Shelby, Hatch, Stevens . . ). It only takes a few to render their option to "defend the indefensible" untenable.

As far as being "risky" for the party, as Nichol's http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0612.nichols.html">points out:

The notion that impeachment is “bad politics” for an opposition party simply isn’t grounded in reality. Of the nine instances when impeachment resolutions were filed against presidents, the opposition party secured the presidency in the next election seven times—most recently when Bush succeeded Clinton. After members of an opposition party pressed for impeachment in Congress, that party has almost always maintained or improved its position in the House at the next general election. After conservative Republicans proposed Truman’s impeachment in the fall of 1952, their party took control of both the House and the presidency. Democrats who moved to impeach Nixon in the summer of 1974 dramatically increased their presence in the House that fall. Even after Republicans bungled their impeachment of Clinton, their party retained control of the House—losing just five seats in the 1998 election that preceded the impeachment vote, and just two in the 2000 election that followed it. And, of course, they also captured the White House.

We routinely hear statements that Cheney is determined to grab the power the nation denied Nixon (although not quite framed in that way). The many connections between Nixon's and Bush's administrations were recently explored in "Power Play" (part of CNN's Broken Gov't series).

The nation, and the Democrats, benefited from the impeachment of Nixon. Given that the Bush+Cheney administration comes from the Nixon mold (and the establishment knows it) they should be talking about how great it will be be for the Dems to impeach Bush.

The weak Dem image is the biggest problems the Dems have. If they could explode that image, they could truly become a permanent majority. Impeachment is not just be the right thing to do, it is the winning thing to do because it is the most effective thing they could do to explode the "weak dem" image, even if it turns out to be a "charge of the light brigade."

Their is no downside risk that is not more than balanced by an upside benefit (both moral and political).

But, even if you believe it is all risk and no benefit, when principle demands action, you act or betray principle. We take oaths and make commitments to do hard and frightening things in advance so that when the time comes, we Just Do It, win or lose, however scary or difficult "It" may be.

If we expected it to be a cake walk for Members of Congress to "support and defend" we wouldn't ask them to swear to do it.

[Time for change]

114. I think you make some very good points here

I was not aware of the history of impeachment as described in the Nichols article. I had no idea that impeachment has been attempted 9 times.

I will have to study Nichols' article in more detail when I have some time. It seems to me that that could punch some holes in the arguments that say that impeachment is bad politics.

[pat_k]

125. I just ordered Nichols book "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism"

And am looking forward to it.

Here's an excerpt from it posted on David Swanson's blog:

"When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DB1638F935A35750C0A961948260&sec=&pagewanted=print">Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.[br />
"Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration."

[Time for change]

127. I'll have to get that book -- thank you

[KharmaTrain]

116. Political Expdiency Trumps All...

In all due respect and I appreciate all you've presented. There's not a shread of what you say or present that isn't grounds to impeach or the need/justification for it. While you see principal over image, that's not the mindset in the betlway or the way this issue would move forward.

First of all, Nixon was NOT Impeached. The Judiciary Committee voted out articles of Impeachment...the first step in the process, but Nixon resigned before the vote got to the House floor and there was never a Senate trial or vote. His pardon prevented any further prosecution and the country was worn out from the nearly 2 years of Watergate and wanted to move on. They did, however, take their vengance of Nixon out at Repugnicans at the polls, but I firmly believe it was not just Nixon, but the cumulative effect of all the scandals and the many indictments and convictions of underlings, not Nixon's resignation, that fueled that vote.

The Senate IS the ultimate arbeiter in an Impeachment. Clinton was exonerated by the Senate...it's what happened there that put the brakes to that partisan inquisition. Sadly, there are at least 34 Repugnicans who put their partisanship over protecting the constitution...and we could discuss that as being a campaign issue, but as far as getting the desired end result of a conviction and expulsion from office, it would easily fail...and then be viewed as a major victory for this regime. Even if there was overwhelming evidence, perception trumps all.

The corporate media would surely play up Impeachment as vengence. They won't look at the substance, but turn it into a gladitorial fight...where ratings and controversy drive the story and the truth and fairness are long put in the dust. Morals be damned when you have the "Mighty Wurlitzer" this regime has assembled that will flood the airwaves with lies and diversions to protect their meal ticket.

An impeachment will be viewed as a power grab by Democrats. We'll hear about how this is being orchestrated by Pelosi or Soros or Michael Moore to take over the government by replacing two elected officials by an appointed one from the other party. It would be the reverse that many on our side screamed about Clinton's inquisition and I feel did resonate with many and did have a negative impact on the Repugnicans. In the '98 mid-terms, they lost seats (which led to the sacking of Gingrich), bucking the long term trend (and one that was amplified last week) of the party out of the White House (then being the Repugnicans) gaining seats in the 6th year of an incumbent's Presidency (in this case Clinton). Impeachment backfired on the Repugnicans and that was with a compliant corporate media that couldn't get enough of pushing the impeachment train.


While Democrats in soldly blue districts would benefit from a grateful electorate, that's not going to be the same view in purple and red areas. With the predominance of hate radio, many people get just one side of the story...and hear it first. Again, perception trumps morals and ideals...and we've seen time and time again with the corrupt corporate media that they'll let a lie run around the world, before the truth brushes its teeth.

Now a question I have is how you would go about a proper impeachement. You'd have to go after one at a time. Do we go after Cheney first? I would think so, since there's plenty of evidence of his violations of laws and would be an easier "target" to get through. Then, let say he's convicted...booosh still has the constitutional power to nominate a successor...and could pull a "Ford"...find a moderate, clean Repugnican to replace Cheney and then what? Certainly this replacement, should boooosh be impeached, would then pull another "our long national nightmare is over" and pardon the whole bunch of crooks. Then what have we achieved?

I want the legal system to get all of these crooks. I don't want a political outcome, I want a just and legal one. This won't be done in the legislative, but through the judicial system....where it belongs. Investigations will bring out the evidence that doesn't require 435 or 100 partisan votes, but that of 12 citizens who aren't reading polls or worried about getting trashed by Faux Noise.

The thing I suggest is we try to cut off their escape routes. Bring forth as many names, instances and expose the wide range of fraud and illegalities so that booosh or whomever won't be able to pardon or give them cover for being held accountable for their crimes. I have far greater faith in Prosecutors than politicians...and far more lasting and damning.

Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

Cheers...

[pat_k]

131. Articles were voted out of committee -- Nixon resigned. Removal is the goal. .

Since the goal of impeachment is removal of the threat (removal from office) the assertion that Nixon "was not impeached" is irrelevant. The goal was attained.

When the threat impeachment becomes real, we are likely to see a similar outcome. The Republicans will be HIGHLY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy." Bush is an albatross they would be happy to dump; and of course they will want to keep the Presidency in Republican hands.

The notion that "political expediency trumps all" is what had been killing the Democratic party -- in addition to being morally abhorrent.

Although the moral imperative is all that REALLY matters, for the benefit of the "strategerists," I have been providing the "political expediency" arguments on DU for more than a year. Most recently in this thread.

If you are interested in a sampling of those arguments, refer to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2758011">post #123 in this thread. I also discuss how destructive and self-defeating the addiction to tactical analysis that focuses 100% on the "certain" negative consequences of action (willfully ignoring the risks of failing to act, and the benefits of acting) in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2964929">this post.

[pat_k]

136. And, if you are interested. . .

I posted the top five losing tendencies, and the top five winning habits that counter them here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569

[Mr_Spock]

13. I'm still going to take the "investigate first" attitude

...only because there is so much other work to be done and I don't think we want to get caught up in the incendiary impeachment frenzy that would follow the first utterance of the word from our Democratic leadership. You can say that we are describing one and the same thing, but the difference is in how much we can accomplish before and after getting bogged down in the impeachment process which will turn the nation on it's head for at least 6 months to a year. Nobody is suggesting that we should look the other way and thus tacitly approve of this and future presidents getting away with murder. Sometimes a more thoughtful and less obvious strategy will achieve a better result in the end. The expression "you can catch more bees with honey" occurs to me here - the Dems have to earn some goodwill first - immediately pulling out their machete and decapitating their enemy without convincing the people that it was necessary and without a plan for victory (remember Iraq) is a recipe for disaster. This may seem "anti-impeachment" to some, but it is anything but - as you seem to acknowledge.

[Time for change]

84. "Nobody is suggesting that we should look the other way and thus

tacitly approve of this and future presidents getting away with murder".

That's the main issue as far as I'm concerned. As long as we see eye to eye on that, I don't think we're too far apart.

[rucky]

17. Bookmarked.

Great summary & analysis!

:yourock:

[mmonk]

18. The confusion arises on the statement "impeachment is off the table".

The impeachment process includes investigations.

[porphyrian]

19. Kick for the Constitutional imperative of impeachment. - n/t

[elocs]

20. I reject the premise that the choices are either pro-impeachment or anti-impeachment.

I am pro-impeachment, but not before investigations and not right out of the box. For the Impeachment Now crowd, how about if we have a vote on impeachment the first day and then on the second day we can have a vote in the Senate, which will not convict Bush, then the process will be done. Because no matter if it is 2 days or 2 months, the reality is that is probably the way it will play out. I would rather see investigations which would set the table for impeachment instead of impeachment hearings which will lead to investigations.

There are many smart and politically savvy people like skinner who do not favor impeachment, or impeachment 24/7 right out of the box from the get-go. Make no mistake about it--if the Democrats start out with impeachment, then nothing else is going to be done. Pelosi understands this and Conyers agrees and they have both said that impeachment is off the table. What part of "impeachment is off the table" is hard to understand? Pelosi understands that conviction after impeachment is a long shot and that impeachment upfront will simply politicize all investigations.
Since it is highly unlikely that Bush will ever be convicted by the Senate, then investigations will go far to expose him and his actions and then maybe impeachment will put itself back onto the table when the American people cry out for it.

[mmonk]

21. There was no qualifier preceeding or subseeding

"impeachment is off the table" that I'm aware of. Political popularity does not enter into constitutional responsibilty or our laws and statutes.

[Time for change]

51. I agree that impeachment doesn't need to be pursued "right out of the box"

But I don't see why we have to wait for the American people to "cry out for it" either.

If investigations clearly demonstrate impeachable offenses, why should we wait for the American people to "cry out for it" before proceeding. In all likelihood, their failure to "cry out for it" would be due to a failure of our corporate news media to adequately educate them. We can't afford to set our agenda according to the dictates of our corporate news media.

[elocs]

58. Well, Pelosi said impeachment is off the table. Conyers agrees.

Is that Pelosi who I see as your avatar? There are many who believe that impeachment is not a good idea, such as John Dean and our very own skinner. There are many whose heads will explode if there is no impeachment and they will probably be forced to join the Green Party. Unless there is clear support for impeachment by a large majority of the American people those same people will view it as revenge by the Democrats than the noble justice that so many plead for.

[Time for change]

61. Skinner did not say that impeachment is not a good idea

As I note in my OP, with a link to Skinner's post, he said

"My view is very simple: Investigations first, and then we can discuss impeachment". What he said he is against is quick impeachment.

Perhaps that is consistent with Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table", since "off the table" is not the same thing as "in the garbage can."

I have no intention of joining a party that has no chance of winning a national election, and my avatar is Barbara Boxer.

[elocs]

63. I am against quick impeachment, many here are not

and that certainly disagrees with skinners position. "Off the table" certainly means no quick impeachment in spite of the feelings of many here to the contrary. The point is that there are many knowledgeable people who are against quick impeachment. Many here seem to want impeachment right away even if it is not done well or properly, just so that it is done. And if it is not done at all, they appear like they do not know what they will do. I once read it suggested here that Pelosi herself should be impeached if she does not bring impeachment of Bush.

[Time for change]

90. Ok, but

I haven't seen anyone on this thread advocate "quick impeachment" or who claim that we should do it right away even if it is not done well or properly.

[Independent_Liberal]

68. I know you keep saying...

...he'll won't be convicted in the Senate after impeachment, but if the investigations drag out enough evidence that catches the attention of the public the investigations and such will become bipartisan and then once the public makes the noise loud and clear, the better chance you have of impeachment actually succeeding (like conviction or resignation). That's the way it worked with Nixon. Nobody thought the Repubs would turn on him, but they did. Howard Baker starting asking "What did the president know and when did he know it?" and Barry Goldwater made the trip over to the White House when they knew it was time for him to go.

Another thing you must keep in mind is all the Republicans who are under investigation. I'm talking about the ones who are caught up in Abramoff, Cunningham, Wilkes, MZM and the other bribery scandals. A good many of them are about to be indicted. All those scandals find their way to the WH. Just having control of the Committees means will not only be able to find many guilty parties in the executive, but also in the House AND Senate. That means we can do ethics probes of these criminal Repukes, find out which of them took bribes and what other crimes they were complicit in, and expel them from Congress. We can give the ones in the Senate in a plea deal and tell them if they want to get re-elected in 2008 and avoid jail time, they can vote with us on the impeachment and that way they won't have to worry about the Dems ever having a 60-seat or more margin in the Senate under a Dem president after 2008. Whether or not you agree with me, I'm just throwing out some ideas.

BTW, if you want to know all the Repukes who are under indictment, have been arrested, are facing criminal charges, and are under civil and criminal investigation, please go here: http://waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.php A very comprehensive list.

[Time for change]

78. I certainly agree with your main premise

After the investigations are completed, I believe that the whole country is going to know a lot more about the numerous crimes and scandals of this administration than most people know now. I believe that Bush and Cheney's popularity will then be even lower than it is now, and then most Americans will favor impeachment. Republicans will then find themselves in a position where their political future will depend upon voting for impeachment/conviction. Then we won't have to offer them any plea deals.

That's my hope and my belief.

[mzmolly]

22. How do we work with the President to bring home troops once we've

started openly/loudly calling for impeachment?

Regarding investigations - We have to hold them in order to make our case to the American people - who we work for.

You said as much here:

As Democrats proceed with impeachment they need to make that crystal clear to the American people. But what if that is not evident to most American citizens? What if the American people suspect, with the substantial aid of our corporate news media, that Democrats are proceeding with impeachment for political reasons or for revenge? In that case, rather than following popular opinion, I believe that Democrats should work very hard to make a case for impeachment to the American people.

How do we make the case? HEARINGS/OVERSIGHT. We need hearings because we need "evidence." We currently have judicial disagreements in this country as to whether or not GWB disregarded the constitution - so it's not as cut and dry as we'd like. We, as a people demand a fair "trial" for those accused (which, ironically is one of the reasons we want impeachment.) We also demand that everyone be entitled to the evidence presented against them, again another irony.

Anyhow, I think the main difference in progressive positions are >

Position # 1. Go in gunz a blazin with the OBVIOUS intent to impeach cause we've been waitin' for justice!

Position # 2. Go in with the intent to do our jobs and let justice unfold naturally before the nation because this is how our constitution was designed to serve us.

I am currently a position #2 DU-er.

/blather

Thanks for the post, great insight!

[riderinthestorm]

24. This pResident has no intention of bringing the troops home

Anyone who believes that there will even be a drawdown is smoking.

The only way these troops are coming home anytime in the next two years is if we impeach this Admin.

[mzmolly]

28. We HAVE to try. And, we have more leverage if we don't damage

the potential right out of the box.

On edit, I love H2OMan's mention that we impeach Cheney - first.

[riderinthestorm]

31. He's already flatly stated he's not pulling them out while he's pRez. nt

[mzmolly]

33. And then he said he'll await the findings of Papa Bush's Iraq group.

I think once they make recommendations, we'll have a better idea what his "new" intentions are.

Remember when he said Republicans were going to maintain power in the House/Senate? Well that didn't happen, he knows he has to "change course."

[riderinthestorm]

35. Even Poppy's group will recommend staying in Iraq

My bet is they will recommend even more troops (yup, that's my bet). They have serious investments there that need protecting. Their only gripe is that Jr has fucked up their gamble. Their only concern now is to salvage more $$. They don't do that by getting out.

They will go to Syria and Iran to get them to back the fuck off with the civil war shit. They will put in more "trainers and advisors". They will reign in some of the chaos so the permanent "bases" can get built and the oil begins to flow smoothly again.

By the way, Jr. has set up his OWN study group now to counter Poppy's. What do you think his study group is gonna recommend? Withdrawal? I don't think so.

The Bu$h's don't give a shit about the elections. They are going their own way and will laugh all the way to the bank (even if they have to get there by a different course).

[mzmolly]

37. You may be right.

Hadn't heard about Bush's study group? Do you have any info?

Regardless - Dems will await his new strategy, then respond. Also, we don't take the hill until January, so we're not going to play our cards now when the R's can quickly change the laws to their liking.

Pelosi has also stated that her MAIN objective is to bring the troops home. I take her at her word, and I agree that is our first priority.

Peace

[riderinthestorm]

40. It was in the Wash Post a couple of days ago

Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; Page A16

President Bush formally launched a sweeping internal review of Iraq policy yesterday, pulling together studies underway by various government agencies, according to U.S. officials.

The initiative, begun after Bush met at the White House with his foreign policy team, parallels the effort by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to salvage U.S. policy in Iraq, develop an exit strategy and protect long-term U.S. interests in the region. The two reviews are not competitive, administration officials said, although the White House wants to complete the process before mid-December, about the time the Iraq Study Group's final report is expected.

The White House's decision changes the dynamics of what happens next to U.S. policy deliberations. The administration will have its own working document as well as recommendations from an independent bipartisan commission to consider as it struggles to prevent further deterioration in Iraq.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401095.html

I agree getting the troops out should also be our first priority. But with Bush and Cheney in the way (as well as the lastest additions of Poppy and the rest), I don't see it happening until this Admin is removed.

[mzmolly]

41. Interesting. I wonder if this group is more about political cover than

actual strategy? With his own group he can operate under a pretense of authority? ;)

Regarding Iraq, again you may be right. Especially if Cheney still has any say at all. But, I think with Rummy's departure and these new groups "stay the course" is wearing thin?

Time will tell.

Have a great weekend.

[riderinthestorm]

43. Thanks you have a great weekend too!

:hi:

[Time for change]

44. When put that way, I believe that I would also go for position # 2

And I'm very happy to see so many Democratic leaders talking about the investigations that they are going to do. This is going to be very interesting. :)

I just pray that they don't get cold feet IF (ha ha) the investigations point to impeachment.

[kenfrequed]

95. Justice doesn't just "happen"

That is sort of the passive role people assume occurs in history. Sadly it doesn't work that way. Justice doesn't ever "unfold naturally" it takes attention and action to keep our leaders in line.

[mzmolly]

96. I didn't assume that the gods would intervene.

My words, in context suggest "action" by "leaders."

[H2O Man]

23. I strongly recommend

that DUers read John Dean's "Worse Than Watergate" for several important points about the threat this administration poses to our democracy. And he raises several important reasons that support the call to impeach. As always, I say this hoping that we begin with VP Dick Cheney.

[mzmolly]

25. Love that idea.

Impeach Cheney!

:hi:

[H2O Man]

26. It has great potential

to help put the imperial executive branch in check, and none of the risks for divisions and hostilities. The republican party would be happy to have the opportunity to blame the war on VP Cheney, who is the least popular person in government in a long, long time.

[mzmolly]

27. I agree.

I think his approval rating is around 15%? :shrug: ;)

[H2O Man]

29. Once formal investigations

begin, there will not be 15 people outside of his family who support him.

[mzmolly]

30. Indeed.

LOL ~ I think he'll be down to "Lynne" and that's about it?

[Time for change]

32. I haven't read that book

I read Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience", but not "Worse than Watergate". I think that the main reason I didn't read that book is because I never felt that I needed to be convinced that this Bush administration is worse than Watergate.

Can you tell us briefly how that book impacts on this discussion? I mean, nobody here seems to be saying that they don't believe that the Bush administration is a threat to our democracy, or that impeachment should not occur. What some people here are saying, however, is that we should proceed slowly or cautiously, conduct investigations, and then, if the investigations show... {whatever, it's not precisely clear to me what they feel the investigations would have to show before proceeding with impeachment} then proceed with impeachment.

Do you have an objection to that?

And with regard to Cheney, I believe that you're saying that we should start with him, NOT that we should be satisfied with impeaching him, without impeaching Bush, right?

[mzmolly]

34. Even Bush and Cheney have the right to a "trial."

It's not about proceeding with caution. It's about proceeding under the guidelines of our constitution/the laws of our nation.

Impeachment is the process by which an individual can be charged with an offense - one is innocent until proven guilty. Investigations will help us "convict ~ beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Time for change]

86. Yes, I agree with all that

When I said that some people feel that we should proceed "with caution", I meant that they feel that we need to be cognizant of the potential political consequences of proceeding too quickly.

I think that the question of how much "caution" to use, and to what extent Democrats should allow their caution to impede their ability to hold the Bush/Cheney administration accountable for their actions is mainly what differentiates some of our views.

[H2O Man]

45. Sure.

I'll just say that Dean makes the point that if one respects the action against Nixon, it demands a similar effort for future presidents who commit similar crimes. There are two pages in particular that those who question the need to impeach should read; they are 154-155. They have to do with the Nixon lies about Cambodia.

He quotes, among others, Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman: "We must give notice to this President and other Presidents that deceit and deception over issues as grave as going to war and waging war cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy."

Republican Rep. Henry Smith agreed, saying, "The debate here will offer guidelines to future presidents."

And Dean quotes Rep. Robert Kastenmeier, who looked to one of the framers of the Constitution, James Iredell, who was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Washington because of his insight on the processes demanded by that Constitution. "The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate," he said during debates on the inclusion of the impeachment powers.

One can have honest differences of opinion on if Bush purposely lied, or if he is an idiot. But there is no debate about VP Cheney's attempts to coordinate lies to the Congress and the public. He should be impeached.

[Time for change]

47. Right, I agree with all of that

Especially this part, with respect to Nixon, Cheney and Bush:

"We must give notice to this President and other Presidents that deceit and deception over issues as grave as going to war and waging war cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy."

But do you think that it makes sense to agree with all of that and still agree with those posters on this thread and others who say that we should investigate first, with impeachment 'off the table', and then proceed with impeachment if the investigations point in that direction (notwithstanding the fact that we see little or no possibility that they won't point in that direction)?

[H2O Man]

55. As everyone who

has any knowledge of impeachment understands, investigations are part of the process. It would be impossible to have impeachment without investigations.

[understandinglife]

66. "It would be impossible to have impeachment without investigations."

A fact some are in need of constant reminding ... for reason(s) that I'm just not smart enough to understand.

Thank you for making it explicit.

[pat_k]

151. Respectfully disagree. . .

We have all we need. To call for investigations is an assertion that we don't have a case, which directly undercuts the powerful case we do have.

Hearings to make the case certainly, but everything needed is on the public records.

The findings of multiple open ended investigations from various committees is a surefire way to get mired irrelevances and unnecessary detail.

Introducing articles, and taking them up by assigning to an existing committee for hearings, or creating a select committee, is the next, absolutely necessary step (if they want to fulfill their oath that is.

Hearings to review articles introduced, recommend changes, make the case are one thing, but keeping it simple and focused on the fact that we know all we need to know is the most effective way to move forward. Certainly if other committees uncover things they want to add, additional articles should be considered, but investigations are absolutely not a prerequisite to impeachment. Discuss this further in the context of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313">Irreconcilable Differences below.

[Fiendish Thingy]

102. Yup- Cheney's got to go first...

otherwise, you get President Cheney... :scared:

They could put almost anybody in the veep slot to replace Cheney (well, OK, not Jeb) and I wouldn't mind. I don't care about positioning for the '08 GOP nomination...

There's plenty of things to investigate to keep the average American informed and aware that things are even worse than the messes of Iraq and Katrina, which made them vote for all the Dems last week. Rather than unfolding scandals by leaks to the media or politcal revenge/payback, the Dem's investigations can be seen as necessary to getting the country back on the right track. IMHO, effective investigations, of the war, corruption, torture, etc. will undoubtedly lead to calls (muted at first, and never becoming unanimous) for impeachment by the public, the media, and yes, even some Republicans.

[Time for change]

115. Since the Bush and Cheney crimes are so closely related, I don't see why

they can't be pursued simultaneously.

I fully agree with you that investigations have the potential to create a groundswell of support for the removal from office of Bush and Cheney.

[pat_k]

150. Impeaching only Cheney is a defacto exoneration of Bush. . .

. . .they are equally culpable. There is no escaping impeachment of both unless you want to exonerate Bush.

[rhett o rick]

36. How does Bushy's ability to pardon enter into this picture? If he is impeached

before he pardons everyone will that prevent the pardons? Is there a way to prevent the whole sale pardons of his administration? How deep will his pardons go? Duke Cunningham??

Question: Are you willing to negotiate bringing the troops home against impeachment?

Great post. I support investigations. We have two major priorities equally important. 1) Undo the damage. and 2) prevent future occurrences.

peace

[Time for change]

87. Thank you -- I'm sorry I can't answer your question

I don't know if an impeached or convicted president has the power to pardon. My guess is that he has the power to pardon until he is convicted of an impeachable offense. Hopefully, if we bring impreachment charges against Bush and Cheney they will be too busy defending themselves to think about using their pardoning powers -- until it's too late.

[immoderate]

100. President's power to pardon is absolute -- while he's in office.

The only possible results of impeachment are conviction, and removal from office, or acquittal.

I like the way this thread is going and that cooler heads are prevailing. One of the purposes of the investigation is to get the Republicans on record as agreeing that such deeds as lying us into a war have been committed, and are impeachable. The case must be sold overwhelmingly to the public.

--IMM

[followthemoney]

38. So the choice is either the politics of fear or... Law and Order.

We should cringe in fear that if we pick a fight with a bully we might get bruised or lose. Who could support a spineless bunch like this over the long run?

Surrender our rights to the bullies and maybe they will leave us alone to play with our toys. But most likely not.

The constitution has been trashed and our elections are a joke because Democrats have cautiously led us in the worship of Republican values.

Find a spine. It is there in the constitution. At the end. Its called the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.

Left and Right has always been about democracy and monarchy. When the forces of monarchy (read "unitary executive," for those unfamiliar with the language of today) win they do it at the expense of democracy.

Democrats are characterized as weak on "Law and Order." Does this bunch live down to expectations or will it decide to stand for its namesake?

[mzmolly]

42. "DEMOCRATS have cautiously led us in the worship of Republican values."

Can you expand on this?

I'd like specifics.

[followthemoney]

49. The party's rejection of censure supported by Feingold. The blind support for

the Patriot Act. The support of the Iraq invasion with disregard of lack of evidence of WMD. The rejection of anti-war resolutions and absence of support for Murtha's call for Iraq pullout. The protection of Bush in the 9-11 investigation by not raising objections to joint testimony of Bush and Chaney while not under oath. The tearful apology of Durban for the comparison of Guantanamo torture to previous totalitarian regimes. The vote by Obama for Condalisa Rice as Secretary of State after her lies before the 9-11 commission. The continued respect for the office of the presidency when the holder of that office holds it in complete disdain. The unwillingness to call liars on their lies. The failure to challenge NSA spying in violation of FISA laws. The blank check for Bush's invasion.
The unwillingness to support challenges to corrupt elections until Boxer in 2004.

It is true that Democrats had little power to act in Congress, but that means they should have been attending or organizing opposition in their states or districts. They know how to get up close and personal in the interest of their own campaigns. They just can't seem to campaign for the public interest with similar intensity.

I could go on for much longer but I can't catch you up if you have been sleeping for the last six years.

[mzmolly]

50. How many Democrats = "The Party?"

And who gets to decide what the Republican agenda is YOU?

The party's rejection of censure supported by Feingold.

What would censure have accomplished besides promoting the "dems are weak on terror" sentiment? And, if Feingold was serious, he would have/should have approached other democrats for support before going on a national campaign.

The blind support for the Patriot Act.

Blind? Democrats made sure the Pat Act was "TEMPORARY."

The support of the Iraq invasion with disregard of lack of evidence of WMD.

Over 130 Democrats voted against the invasion. Further, those who voted for the "last resort" option were told that we would finish inspections and would only pursue a war in the event of no other alternatives.

The rejection of anti-war resolutions and absence of support for Murtha's call for Iraq pullout.

The Democrats recently united around a resolution to get out of Iraq.

The protection of Bush in the 9-11 investigation by not raising objections to joint testimony of Bush and Chaney while not under oath.

Not raising objections? Who's not been paying attention here?

The tearful apology of Durban for the comparison of Guantanamo torture to previous totalitarian regimes.

Durbin = "The Party?" How many Independents = Nader? Durbin was apologizing because DEMOCRATS made that comparison.

The vote by Obama for Condalisa Rice as Secretary of State after her lies before the 9-11 commission.

AGAIN, Obama's single vote = the entire Democratic Party capitulating to Republican values?

The continued respect for the office of the presidency when the holder of that office holds it in complete disdain.

"The office of the Presidency" does deserve respect.

The unwillingness to call liars on their lies.

Democrats have called Bush a liar on numerous occasions.

The failure to challenge NSA spying in violation of FISA laws.

Democrats did challenge and question the program and they continue to do so.

The blank check for Bush's invasion.

Addressed above when you mentioned the Iraq vote.

The unwillingness to support challenges to corrupt elections until Boxer in 2004.

Another lie. Gore challenged in 2000, which is why the matter went to the supreme court.

It is true that Democrats had little power to act in Congress, but that means they should have been attending or organizing opposition in their states or districts.

We were organizing opposition all over the country. Trouble is YOU don't get to decide what opposition consists of.

They know how to get up close and personal in the interest of their own campaigns. They just can't seem to campaign for the public interest with similar intensity.

Bullshit.

[followthemoney]

54. Have a nice dream!

[mzmolly]

74. Have a nice nightmare!

:eyes:

[AntiFascist]

73. Excellent points...

and if we don't slap them somehow (through impeachment or indictments) then Democrats WILL be setting a precedent for future unitary executives to exploit.

[Time for change]

88. I agree with most of what you say here, except

"Democrats have cautiously led us in the worship of Republican values".

You're right that we should not be afraid of getting into a fight with them, especially when it comes to the need to investigate their very serious crimes.

But, although it's true that sometimes Democrats have not championed the values that I would like to see them fight for, I think that it is a big exaggeration to say that they have led us in the worship of Republican values.

[bobbolink]

46. YES! The discussions have mostly been about political expediency.

YES! The discussions have mostly been about political expediency.

It scares me that so many are willing to put party above country.

First and foremost, we must concern ourselves with the health of the nation. When our constitution is at risk, and our nation is in danger of succumbing to what amounts to a "hostile takeover", party loyalty is second to loyalty to the nation.

I'm so glad you included H2OMan's essay! I fervently hope that others will avail themselves of his words, and recognize the importance this has for our nation.

Thank you for taking the time (and the incoming heat!) to post this. I can only hope it will set many to thinking.

[Time for change]

52. Yes, we must first and foremost concern ourselves with the health of our country

There seems to be some differences of opinions on exactly how to do that, but I think that that is a major priority of the good majority of DUers.

I feel that there has been a lot of very good discussion on this thread, and I can see that a lot of people have thought a lot about this.

And though this discussion has certainly helped to clarify this issue somewhat for me, I am still somewhat confused as to what the differences are between us. It seems that we all want investigations, and as far as I can tell we all want impeachment too, though some would qualify their desire for impeachment in various ways that still aren't crystal clear to me.

Thank you for your thoughts. This has been educational, and I don't feel that there has been a great deal of heat.

[bobbolink]

53. Now, it's important to take the "conversation" beyond DU!

As I mentioned in another thread, I'm printing out H2OMan's wonderful essay, and sharing it with as many others as I can. I think all his points are very important, and laid out very well.

I'm glad you haven't felt "a great deal of heat". I've seen so much sneering and name-calling that I don't want to participate. When I read on one thread about the "screeching impeachers", I gave up. We all understand that investigations will come first, and I don't understand why we are putdown for talking about impeachment, as if we didn't understand it. Investigations are a given, and that's what Conyers has been talking about for ages, and now Waxman, too.

So, I'm glad this thread is comfortable to you, and I appreciate you posting!! I"ll look forward to more from you! :thumbsup:

:hi:

[Time for change]

57. It's very good to hear that you're spreading his work around

Our corporate media does such a poor job of educating people about the most important issues in our country that efforts such as that are very much needed.

:toast:

[bobbolink]

59. I figured a long time ago that we have to be our own media.

Thanks goodness we have H2OMan to do the heavy lifting for us!

Can you imagine what it would be like if newspapers were actually printing things like that essay of his?!

I just saw a headline from the paper, pointing out how much money both parties spent, for mostly negative advertising. People will gripe and complain about that, yet those negative ads are used because it's what works.

When our citizenry decide to do away with corporate money in our political system, and decide to spend time learning the issues instead of voting depending on how many yard signs they see for a given candidate, then our system will fare much better.

Do I sound disgruntled? :)

:toast: to you and your fine thread!

[Time for change]

62. Thanks -- I agree that the corporate media is a great part of the problem

Here's what I had to say about that a few months ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1784920

[katinmn]

70. Well said, bobbolink. I heartily concur

The arguments against impeachment have centered on political expediancy. The issue at stake is much bigger than party ideology and power.

[high density]

56. I hate to say it, but the Democrats have to play the media game.

Going all out for impeachment right now is just not going to work. I think the Dems should do a "boiling frog syndrome" sort of maneuver over the next term of congress. Start the investigations fast and keep ratcheting up the temperature on Bush until impeachment is the only obvious option to take. Impeachment is at the end of this process, not the beginning.

[Time for change]

64. Well, that's probably one of the most lucid explanations I've heard on this subject

Perhaps there's not much difference after all between the so-called "pro-impeachment" and "anti-impeachment" crowd on DU. Perhaps the main difference is the perception of how far we can go towards playing the media game without sacrificing our need to hold the Bush/Cheney regime responsible for its actions.

I like your "boiling frog syndrome" analogy.

[WiseButAngrySara]

60. Impeachment. Our civic responsibility and our constitutional right.

K & R! Excellent and thought-provoking post.

[understandinglife]

65. "The issue is simply whether or not a president and vice president have the right to ignore our ...

... Constitution and the laws of our country."

Yes. And, ignore international laws and treaties (which, in doing so, also violates the US Constitution).

Excellent, as always.

Thank you and recommended,
Bob

[Time for change]

76. Thank you ul -- Yes, they hold international and domestic law in equal contempt

Consequently, we've lost the respect of most of the world -- but they don't give a damn about that either.

[AntiFascist]

67. I feel that the bottom line is the War in Iraq...

You provide excellent arguments supporting impeachment, but I feel that if you analyze the motives behind those supporting anti-impeachment versus those pushing impeachment proceedings I think you may find a difference in the amount of support for our troops being in Iraq as well as support for putting military pressure on Iran.

If impeachment proceedings were to focus on the evidence leading up to our attack on Iraq (which in the international community is perceived as being among the gravest of war crimes committed by the US) then Americans would be forced to consider this issue out in the open. My feeling is that this could lead to a groundswell of support for pulling out of Iraq, and suppressing our military threats against other Arab nations. Instead of jeopardizing future Democratic presidential hopefuls, it would jeopardize future plans for imperial conquest.

[Time for change]

80. Yes, I believe that is correct -- which would be an added benefit of

impeachment/investigations into the crimes of the Bush administration.

And I think that it is fair to surmise that there WILL be investigations into how the Bush administration lied to Congress and manipulated them into supporting his Iraq war. I believe you are right, that a lot of good things will come of that.

[katinmn]

71. Thank you. Great discussion thread.

Bush has broken laws and set our country back decades. He is a torturing war criminal, and he is not done waging war. He deserves to be impeached for acting against the wishes and will of the people, not the handful that have done a poor job of representing us. Americans kicked out those in power in the mid-terms. We meant it! We can't stop now. We got their attention and we need to keep going. We need to support those whom we sent to DC to clean out corruption and end wars for profit. As far as those that are only in it for the political game, we must steer them toward being representatives of the people.

Enough of the war and incompetence. Now is not the time to play nice in order to get a few scraps over the next two years.

[Time for change]

117. Thank you katinmn - Yes, Bush certainly is a torturing war criminal

And that, above all else in my opinion, is the best reason for getting rid of him.
:thumbsup:

[Initech]

72. I'm starting to think censure would hurt Bush more than impeachment.

Hear me out - and the reason why I think censure would hurt him more is that Bush is one president who has literally been able to get away with murder. Censuring him would not only make the next two years incredibly difficult for him, but it would also hurt the republicans in Congress as well.

[Time for change]

119. But impeachment and conviction is a much more powerful rebuke than censure

I think that establishing solid grounds for impeachment, and then proceeding with it, would hurt the Republicans more than censure. I think that censure is too mild. The only thing that affects these people is force.

[infinity818425]

79. Re: Thoughts on Impeachment

I am in complete agreement. I would love to see him impeached. I would love to see Shrub/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld pay for their crimes against the World. I want them to pay and pay now.

Being a rational person, I understand that there are political considerations to be taken into account. I understand that as the hearings progress, it is hoped that the evidence provided will lead to an impeachment. I understand that they are looking to make sure that they can field a viable 2008 candidate.

Screw that! Obey the constitution and bring this man to justice. Bring this man before those he has wronged and allow him to be judged accordingly. I am tired of waiting. I'm tired of listening to Republican pundits use terror as a reason not to bring this selfish, evil, war criminal on charges. We need to show the World that we are still a country of Liberty and Justice. The harm this man has done to the country in the name of greed and profit is enormous and I want heads to roll.

[puebloknot]

91. Very important insights

We will not be finished with this discussion about impeachment until justice is done under the Constitution.

Yes, there has been confusion here about what people mean when they seem to be against impeachment. I keep repeating this to myself:

There cannot be impeachment without investigations, but there can be investigations which never lead to impeachment, or any other meaningful legal action. Iran/Contra is Exhibit 1 in this regard.

Impeachment is required for malfeasance under the Constitution. Failure to do that means complicity with the administration.

Impeachment does not guarantee conviction in the Senate, but it makes a record for posterity to show that American had not lost its soul to the Bush cabal.

Legal action can still be taken in domestic and international courts against the president and vice-president, even if impeachment succeeds, but convition in the Senate does not -- and most assuredly so if impeachment succeeds, with or without conviction.

I don't feel we can legally, or in good conscience, impeach Cheney without also impeaching Bush. Do we give our own Caligula a pass because he was just a puppet, having his strings pulled? We need to cut the strings *and* get rid of the puppet master.

Having said that, do we want Nancy Pelosi to ascend to the presidency, no matter how briefly, under that scenario? I know what my answer to that is. What's yours?

It may be that those calling for impeachment of Cheney alone feel that appointment of another VP, with Bush still in office, would prevent the presidency from going to the Speaker of the House -- which is what the Constitution calls for when both a sitting president and vice-president are unable to serve. From a moral/ethical standpoint, I don't see how we can avoid going after both Bush and Cheney. Not being the brightest tack in the box is not a defense against criminal actions for a president. He can't get by with pleading temporary insanity...unless we let him!

If Bush alone were impeached, and Cheney left in place to take over, he could do a Gerald Ford and pardon GW. That's why I think we need to impeach both of them.

Should impeachment begin to look like a serious possibility, we might see the resignation of Bush and Cheney, and perhaps others of their entourage. Then we would have Pelosi as acting president until the next election cycle. That would depend, I think, on the order of the resignations.


DISCLAIMER: I am not a legal or constitutional scholar. I'll welcome any procedural corrections in the items I've outlined below! This is just my musing over the last ten days to try to keep things straight in my own head.

[Time for change]

132. Lots of great points puebloknot

I don't know about the likelihood of Nancy Pelosi becoming President, but I have two thoughts on it.

I recently read a LTTE in "The Nation" that speculated on that very issue. William Greider, whose opinion I very much respect, responded to the LTTE by saying something like "And that's exactly why Nancy Pelosi cannot push for impeachment -- it will be seen as too political".

And yet it seems to me that even if we proceed with impeachment of both of them simultaneously (which I believe we should do), if there is any separation between the conviction of the two, a new VP could be in place before the conviction of the 2nd one takes place. But on the other hand, perhaps the Dems could stall just long enough. I think it would be great to have Pelosi as President going into 08, but that should not be a consideration in pursuing impeachment.

[puebloknot]

164. Just saw this Monday 1:45

Yes, I thought about that possibility, there would be a new VP before Pelosi could take over.

As to Pelosi and 2008...I'll hae to see how she performs now before I would think of supporting her as president. If she shirks her duty to bring the people to justice, she doesn't belong in the White House, or in the Congress.

[IWantAChange]

161. Investigations must proceed or America will have lost its 'balance' as

well as its moral compass. This thing we call Democracy must be brought back to its intended position - not with what appears to be an Imperial Presidency disregarding the other two branches - but with one of those branches - namely Congress - doing its duty under the Constitution and investigating if in fact the Executive branch has exceeded its powers and usurped some of its (Congressional) powers. To do anything less in my mind should be an impeachable offense for those in Congress voted in to represent each and every individual American citizen. Should Impeachment proceedings come about as a reslult so be it - but it is the process that is all-important in my mind.

[katinmn]

109. infinity818425 ....

great first post!

Welcome. :hi:

Kat in MN

[Time for change]

120. Welcome to DU infinity

:toast: :thumbsup:

[rich4468]

89. Let's remember that Libby's trial starts in January...

...and that it is almost certain that Cheney will be subpoenaed to testify in that trial. Fitzgerald has been quiet but he hasn't gone away. I think things may start move in completely different directions than any of us expected.

As far as impeachment is concerned, the bottom line is (and many have alluded to this) that with a 51-49 "majority" in the Senate any move to impeach Bush will be an uphill battle. Remember that Ben Nelson in Nebraska will almost certainly not vote to convict Bush. Lieberman is probably not to be counted on as well (and in fact impeachment proceedings just may impel him to caucus with the Republicans if he feels under pressure to vote with the Democrats and there goes our majority in the Senate and all the committee chairs). And I don't think that the investigations will be thorough enough in just a year to start those proceedings to be honest; And I'm not sure it would be anything but symbolic in Bush's last year of office to actually follow through with actually impeaching him.

You know, I used to think that there was no option BUT to impeach him. And I was the one who was screaming the loudest to impeach the bastard. But now that I've taken a step back and looked at what we have to work with, I've come to realize that, despite the rage and frustration and helplessness and the sheer LUST for REVENGE, I am starting to think impeachment is not really the right option with this Congress at this point in time. Don't get me wrong, I agree with those who say that if it becomes a bipartisan campaign as a result of the investigations then by all means we should nail this guy's balls to the wall. However, it seems to me that in a year (maybe even less) the focus will start shifting to the 2008 Presidency and nailing down more Democratic pickups in the Senate and I think that impeachment will quietly shuffle into oblivion.

And perhaps that is the right course of action. Bush will not be viewed kindly by history. His legacy is Iraq and it will follow him to his grave. I have a feeling that many countries will follow Germany's example and issue arrest warrants for Bush after he leaves office. Remember that he's fair game after January 2009. Who knows, perhaps he'll be tried and convicted after he leaves office in THIS country for the war crimes he committed in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Impeachment is only one possibility. I think that we have to be patient and see what happens. I think we all may be surprised beyond our wildest dreams.

:)

[puebloknot]

93. ...impeachment will quietly shuffle into oblivion...

...just as it did in the Iran/Contra scandal, which failure set the stage for what we are dealing with today.

Somewhere, deep down in the American soul, I'm hoping there is still a memory of what this country has attempted to stand for since its founding. Impeachment isn't about a lust for revenge; it's about justice. It's about saying to the country and the world that we don't condone lying and torture and murder.

I agree that the focus will start shifting -- in fact, has already shifted for the politicos in Washington -- to the 2008 election. And the American people should be *outraged* at that fact. So, almost 3,000 of our own have died in Iraq, and many times more Iraqi citizens. But we don't have time to tidy up that particular mess because we have to look to the future! We have to stay in power, even if our methods for doing so make us very little better than those we just threw out of office!

Tell that to the loved ones of all those dead people!

[rich4468]

107. I agree...

However, I don't think that THIS Congress can convict him. I do, however, see some wisdom in the idea of impeaching him in the House in order to make that part of his Presidency going forward.

The article above this Journal Post may bode well for our chances though as more and more Republicans distance themselves from Bush.

[katinmn]

110. didn't some other asshole take the rap for Libby-Cheney?

Yes, I think so. Libby's trial is going to be nothing but a little fizzle.

[Time for change]

121. Consider Conyers' report, "The Constitution in Crisis"

I believe that that constitutes a huge start on investigations that should set the stage for impeachment.

I agree with you that this should not be about revenge. But if impeachable offenses against our Constitution were committed, then it seems to me that we have a duty to pursue them.

No movement was made to impeach Reagan over one of the gravest scandals in our history, and unfortunately, at least at this time, history looks upon him way to favorably -- probably because so few people are aware of the crimes that his administration committed.

Welcome to DU, and thanks for your comments :toast:

[rich4468]

160. Thanks...

I'm actually not new... more of a lurker really... I already have many message boards that I contribute to so I don't really comment that much as the format of DU is rather cumbersome...

Don't misunderstand me, I fully expect that Conyers will strip the White House bare with subpoenas and investigations. I want to see Bush squirming on a chair with sweat on his upper lip and brow, UNDER OATH, being forced to answer for his many crimes. I want him to stare into empty space fully aware that he's in DEEP SHIT.

Having said that, I just fear that if it is felt that the only thing the Democrats can muster after gaining a majority is IMPEACHMENT then we may be inadvertently fostering a widespread reaction of sympathy for Bush which will destroy the Democrats in 2008. If it seems that there is broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate as a result of the investigations then I think then by all means they should proceed with the impeachment process. But if it seems like Congress is falling on party lines as the investigations progress then we'll have gained nothing by trying to force the square peg of impeachment into the round hole of our slim majority in the Senate. It may be our Constitutional duty but if we lose the White House and the Senate and/or the House in 2008 then we can kiss goodbye any hopes for restoring a balance to the Supreme Court and we can certainly expect that those various pet projects of the Religious Right may just come to fruition.

McCain just stated this weekend that he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Beware McCain and the White House in 2008. I'm not sure that impeaching Bush and as a result ending up with McCain in the White House is really what I want to see the next 6 years pan out.

[illinoisprogressive]

92. proceed with Caution

I am not anti impeachment nor pro. What I want is for the investigations to proceed and uncover and give enough hard evidence that impeachment would be impossible not to do. I want it so that to not impeach would be negligent.
I do not want in januray a flurry of impeachment now attempts only to have it blow up and make us look like fools and do damage to a party just as they have defined themselves as a responsible and serious party.
It cannot be done so that it looks like "get back" and therefore bring sympathy for the criminals while casting the democrats as fools.
The investigations are the key. It is almost certain that so much malfesence will be uncovered and certain criminal acts that the public will be overwhelmingly on the side of impeachment and we will have the cold hard evidence not only to bring to trial but to convict. And not just bush and cheney. I personally want the war criminal, Wolfowitz to stand trial for his actions. All of the neocons. But, I want it so we have the hard evidence and impeachment is a must and a mandate.

[Time for change]

122. "It is almost certain that so much malfesence will be uncovered

and certain criminal acts that the public will be overwhelmingly on the side of impeachment and we will have the cold hard evidence not only to bring to trial but to convict".

I most certainly hope you are correct about that, and I believe you are.

[pat_k]

154. Defining ourselves as the party of "We the People" and . .

. . .the consent of the governed could far more powerful and inspiring. Being the "responsible party" by committing to "bipartisanship" with an administration that a growing majority of Americans are outraged at just doesn't track.

There is all this outrage and energy out here. It was expressed in the election, but it didn't disappear. Outrage=energy. Instead of tapping into that energy by giving voice to the outrage, the Democratic leadership is trying to put the lid on it with. ("Hey, don't be mad. Let's all get along.")

The antidote to so-called "partisanship" is NOT "bipartisanship" it is Reality. You rise above partisanship when you confront truth and reality head on and take the actions demanded by the facts.

The only way any elected official or candidate can prove commitment to our founding principles over party is to fight for those principles regardless of partisan concerns.

There is nothing partisan about declaring your intent to see that War Criminals are brought to justice. There is nothing partisan declaring your intent to rescue the Constitution.

Instead of recognizing this and actually rising above partisanship by fighting for core principles, the so-called Democratic strategists think the antidote can be found in cynically "going along to get along" and saying they seek bipartisanship, which people across the spectrum assume is insincere (as demonstrated the assertion that Pelosi is just mouthing what the right wants to hear to mollify them -- something I have heard repeatedly from folks on our side.)

With the ONE weapon that We the People gave them to defend our government from abuses of power "off the table," they are trapped in a world of image, doubletalk and euphemism because they are desperately trying to avoid having to say anything about the crimes that Bush, Cheney have committed against the Constitution.

There is nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

It is impossible to speak in inspiring terms about who we are as a nation if they refuse to point to the fascists and say "That is the OPPOSITE of who we are. Bush and Cheney have broken the terms of our common contract -- the Constitution. The ONLY way to reassert our collective sovereignty is through Impeachment."

It seems to me the even the folks defending Pelosi's "off the table" pledge don't seem to be very thrilled with it. "Hey, come on everybody, let's 'wait and see'" is not exactly energizing. There is a sense of submitting to a necessary evil. If the actions of our leaders make us feel a little "icky" how can we expect them to inspire our fellow citizens?

[pat_k]

94. Irreconcilable differences

Searching for "middle ground" can be productive in many contexts, but in this case, the differences between the "pro-impeachment" and the "anti-impeachment" people are irreconcilable.

This assertion is based on the following assumptions and definitions.

Definitions

• Pro-impeachment
  
  People who are calling on Members of Congress to
  1. take concrete action to formally and publicly accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes against the Constitution;
  2. declare their intent to impeach both Bush and Cheney
     (e.g., by introducing articles and calling on the House to take them up);
  3. do whatever they can to see that Bush and Cheney are removed from office via resignation or impeachment.
  
  People who believe that the Democratic Party's failure to take up the fight for impeachment is symptomatic of a deeply ingrained pattern of self-defeating behavior that must be challenged. (We have seen the enemy, and it is us.)
  
  People who believe that Impeachment is a moral imperative; who reject "priorities" that call on the nation to ignore torture because it might "distract" from raising the minimum wage.


• Anti-impeachment (one or more of the following)
  
  People who defend the Democratic leadership's self-imposed "impeachment is off limits" edict.
  
  People who believe impeachment will make it impossible to "get things done" and that "getting things done" is a higher priority than rescuing the Constitution or taking the massive power of the American presidency out of the hands of war criminals.
  
  People who believe that that immediately and formally accusing Bush and Cheney is "jumping the gun" because Congress "must investigate first."
  
  People who believe that keeping impeachment "off the table" while the various committees pursue various open-ended investigation will eventually get the nation to impeachment "safely."
  
  People who would undoubtedly become truly "pro-impeachment" if the Democratic leadership took impeachment "out of the closet" by accusing Bush and Cheney of their crimes and declaring their intent to impeach.

Assumptions

• Assumption 1 -- When the Constitution is under attack, Congress is sworn to defend it. The question before members in the current crisis is this: "Are Bush and Cheney an intolerable threat to the Constitution?"


• Assumption 2-- Numerous charges against Bush and Cheney are well known to the public. Elected bodies, good government organizations, and countless individual citizens have examined the evidence and judged Bush and Cheney to be an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy.


• Assumption 3 -- When charges that officials are abusing their power to subvert the Constitution are brought to their attention, Members of Congress have a duty to judge the charges -- to either dismiss the charges as baseless or take defensive action to remove the threat. They bear responsibility for damage done each day that they unnecessarily put off their duty to judge.
  
  The limbo of "I don't know" is not an escape. Vague claims to "need more information" are no better than the limbo of "I don't know." If they believe they need something more to make a judgment, they must actively seek it. If they are unable to get what they need, they must render judgment on the information at hand.


• Assumption 4 -- Members of Congress are aware of the most common charges against Bush and Cheney, the evidence cited, and the conclusions.


• Assumption 5 -- Everything necessary to unequivocally prove at least three of the charges is available in the public record. These charges are described in "Three criminal conspiracies committed in plain sight" below.


• Assumption 6 -- Any one of the crimes described in "Three criminal conspiracies committed in plain sight" is all that is needed to conclude that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution.


• Assumption 7 -- Calls for investigation say one thing: "We don't have enough information."


• Assumption 8 -- When the Constitution is threatened, their Congressional oath calls for Congressional action. For example, formally calling on the House to take up impeachment by introducing Articles of Impeachment for consideration.

Key irreconcilable differences

• Pro-impeachment people reject the rationalizations for inaction that are invoked by anti-impeachment people -- e.g., "the backlash beast will get us" or the self-defeating prophesy "can't win so don't fight." (For sample point-counterpoint see the exchange between longship and pat_k that that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964929&mesg_id=2965602">this post).


• Assertions that the "silence is complicity" and that the choice is "duty or complicity" (pro-impeachment) cannot be reconciled with the assertion that avoiding feared negative consequences can excuse dereliction of duty (anti-impeachment).


• The assertion that we e know all we need to know (pro-impeachment) cannot be reconciled with the assertion that there must be investigations first (some anti-impeachment).
  
  {must investigation} = {don't have a case} = {nullify powerful case we have}


• The pro-impeachment belief that Democratic leaders could tap into a mother lode of public outrage if they became champions of impeachment cannot be reconciled with the anti-impeachment defense of Speaker to be Pelosi, an "anti-champion" who is doing everything she can to suppress outrage and "sit on" anyone in the Democratic caucus who looks like they might be on the verge of becoming a champion. (For more on champions, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2694923#2699414">this post)

. . .Let me put it another way. Certainly the “pro-impeachment” DUers recognize that investigation must precede a vote on impeachment. So it seems to me that almost all of us (both "anti-impeachment" and "pro-impeachment") are advocating investigations. . .

Saying "we need to investigate" is effectively an assertion that "we don't have a case." To effectively make the case, we must be crystal clear that we know all we need to know. This is tough for folks on "our side." We are very big on knowledge and often fail to realize that we know all we need to know as we unnecessarily seek to know all there is to know.

Investigations to determine the damage done and to root out co-conspirators can follow impeachment (or can go forward in parallel), but calling for open ended investigations to "set the stage" for impeachment negates the powerful case we have. Such open-ended investigations are a surefire way to get mired in unnecessary detail and irrelevancies.

Impeachment hearings to review the strongest articles and make the case to the public may or may not be necessary. Even with the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda coming from the establishment -- both Dems and Repubs -- Newsweek found that 51% want impeachment to be a priority, and only 44% believe "it should not be done." If they get serious about impeachment, the accusations will be the number 1 topic of public debate. The 51% is almost guaranteed to shoot up to more than 60% overnight. (For more on this, see the discussion in http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Results on Impeachment.

. . .I would rather see impeachment "out there on the table and visible for all to see", but if that’s going to hurt Democrats (which I'm not convinced of) then I agree that it would be best to keep talk of impeachment "off the table" until we see what the investigations turn up. . . .

Your doubt about the validity of their fear of "backlash" is well-found. Like so many other urban myths, the existence of the "backlash beast" isn't supported by logic or evidence, nevertheless, "everybody knows" its lying in wait.

But, even if we could prove the existence of the mythical backlash beast, it wouldn't matter. Outcome expectations are irrelevant. When principle demands action, you act or betray principle. We take oaths and make commitments to do hard and frightening things in advance so that when the time comes, we Just Do It, win or lose, however scary or difficult "It" may be.

If we expected it to be a cake walk for Members of Congress to "support and defend" we wouldn't ask them to swear to do it.

What is so heartbreaking and infuriating is that addiction to risk avoidance and dereliction of duty appears to be rampant among the DC Dems. Over and over, their failure to act leads to consequences far more dire than the worst they feared would result if they had acted.

They seek their escape from duty in tactical analysis that focuses almost exclusively on the "certain" negative consequences of action.. For example, in the current crisis, "opinion makers" and party insiders alternate between assurances that the nation wants Democrats to work with Bush and his toadies in Congress and warnings that the public will blast them if they impeach. The moral and political benefits of impeachment (e.g., exploding the "weak Dem" image), the enormous risks of failing to impeach, and the recent polls (e.g., http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-2006/0004456423&EDATE=">Newsweek's) that find a majority of Americans want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress are conspicuously absent (i.e., willfully ignored).

. . .I consider impeachment to be essential to our country.

Absolutely, positively, essential!

I've summarized my "top three" in the following section, but there are so many crimes to choose from and there is so much outrage percolating out here, it doesn't really matter which charges they decide are the most powerful. Keeping it simple should be the guiding principle. The crimes that don't end up in the articles will always be part of public debate and criminal prosecution of those crimes must follow, but you don't need "everything" to get Bush and Cheney out of there. (People were happy to see Capone convicted on tax evasion. Knowledge of "uncharged" crimes colors judgment. While this is to be avoided at all costs in a criminal trial, this is a political process in which there no such prohibition.)

Three criminal conspiracies committed in plain sight

1. Bush and Cheney did not simply "lie" the nation into war -- they terrorized us with threats of "Mushroom Clouds over our cities in 45 minutes."
   
   Whether or not the White House "knew" that the "16 words" were a fantasy, no amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years.
   
   When Bush and Cheney and their minions threatened the nation with "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" they knew they were making the most colossal bomb threat in our history.



2. Bush's criminal surveillance of Americans without warrants continues. The unconstitutional claim that they have a "get out of jail" free card (unitary authoritarian power) is laughable, and they know it. If they actually believed their own claims they would not currently be mounting a final, desperate push to "make it legal."



3. When the Supreme Court ruled that the operations and procedures ordered by the White House and implemented at Gitmo violated Geneva, they found Bush, Cheney, and those who colluded in the violations to be War Criminals.

Until they declare their intent they are derelict in their duty

There are no half-measures that satisfy their oath.

The charges against Bush and Cheney are hanging out there. They are not going to magically "disappear." Democratic control of Congress can not defend against the Bush administration's continued abuse of power.

As described in Assumption 2 and 3 at the start of this post, members of Congress cannot escape their duty to pass judgment on the charges.

Every day that they do nothing they betray their oath and demonstrate contempt for the concerned citizens who are calling on them to act. The citizens who are taking up the fight for impeachment are a very active bunch who will not quietly accept the dismissive contempt of their elected officials for long.

Every day that they do nothing effectively exonerates Bush and Cheney. If exoneration is their intent, then they should do it honestly by telling the nation why the abuses that a majority of Americans can see are not abuses in their eyes.

Dereliction through in action is bad enough, but those who are mindlessly balking with claims that the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is "it's off the table" (no reason or justification, it's just off, period) are declaring their intent to betray their oath. (Throwing away the only weapon you have to defend against presidential abuse of power is "pre-emptive" surrender.)

The price of delay could be unimaginable

Time Is NOT on our side.

The price of delay could be unimaginable.⁽¹⁾ Any day we could see another terrorist attack; Bush could declare war on Iran or Syria or North Korea or Venezuela or even Haiti; or some completely unforeseen event could make it impossible to rescue our national soul for a long time to come.

_______________________________________________________

(1) Even when we move full steam ahead, we can be thwarted by events.

On September 10, 2001, there were many signs that sanity was returning. The number who believed Florida was stolen had passed 50%. Bush's approval was continuing the steady downward slide that started the day he was inaugurated. A coalition led by Democrats.com that included the National Lawyers Guild and Vincent Bugliosi was about http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2701395&mesg_id=2707042">to announce their "fall offensive" -- a campaign that that included the effort to see Scalia et al. impeached for Bush v. Gore.

Bush's claims to any semblance of legitimacy were crumbling fast.

Then the sun came up on 9/11/2001. In the weeks that followed, the countless people who were horrified by the stolen election and Bush's incredible abuses were silenced in a nation that had seemingly gone mad.

Sanity is once again returning, but we must recognize how fragile the moment is.

[katinmn]

111. pat_k :

:patriot:

You speak for me. Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts. Bookmarking.

[Swamp Rat]

97. IMPEACH BUSH!

[Pachamama]

101. Ditto!

:hi:

[rosesaylavee]

135. Simple and to the point!

:rofl:

I agree. I like H2O Man's reasoning to impeach Cheney first if Dick doesn't disappoint us all by resigning first. One way or the other, their crimes will not go unpunished.

[CarbonDate]

103. Something the pro-impeachment crowd never address:

This is bigger than Bush and Cheney. It's not enough to shoot the swamp monster; we also have to drain the swamp and destroy the 10,000 eggs it laid in the swamp.

Why can't we be smart about this? Why this push to blow our load impeaching Bush and Cheney when we know that they're just figure-heads? There are only two years left in his term, but there's a lot more nightmare ahead of us if we let the ones pulling the strings go to the store and find a new puppet.

New puppet? I give you Exhibit A, former Health and Human Services Secretary and Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson. He's a clown and the Democratic Party will absolutely dismiss him as a non-threat. But he's a clown who knows how to win and is from a crucial swing state. He can also plausibly distance himself from the administration's more disastrous policies. He's also a guy who would be easily manipulable by the powers that be who control the current ass-clown in the White House.

Point being: you want to go after Bush? Fine. Do it after we've taken out his masters behind the scenes. Let's have a little patience and stop being so damned short-sighted. I could give a shit about the political considerations. I want to see to it that we're not dealing with another swamp monster in 2 - 4 years.

[pat_k]

118. "Pro-impeachment" people do address this -- I just did in this post. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756403

[Time for change]

124. Interesting and important points - I agree with the need for patience

But why does investigating Bush and Cheney mean that we need to neglect investigating others who have committed crimes? Why can't it all be done simultaneously, since the crimes and participants are all related?

[brindis_desala]

149. Bingo! We have a winner!

[eridani]

105. Impeachment ought to be about the Constitution, but it isn't

Andrew Johnson, Clinton or Bush, it's all POLITICAL, period. For that reason, so that it doesn't backfire on us, a push for impeachment must not be activist-driven--it has to come from the much larger numbers of people who mostly don't pay attention.

[pat_k]

123. The public is already there. . .

A majority already want impeachment to be a priority in the 110th Congress (http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek Poll). Even with the "anti-champion" Speak-to-be Pelosi doing everything in her power to suppress outrage and "sit on" any member of the Democratic caucus that appears to be on the verge of becoming a champion, they can only manage to get 44% to say the new Congress "shouldn't impeach" -- and that includes Dems who are following Pelosi's lead (Dems who would immediately jump on the impeachment bus if Democratic leaders gave voice to the public's outrage (Bush again hits a new "lowest ever") and become champions of impeachment.

The Bush+Cheney administration comes from the Nixon mold, and the establishment knows it. We routinely hear statements that Cheney is determined to grab the power the nation denied Nixon (although not quite framed in that way). The many connections between Nixon's and Bush's administrations were recently explored in "Power Play" (part of CNN's Broken Gov't series).

Comparisons to Clinton's impeachment and the blind assumption that the public will hold the Dems in the same contempt as the "House Managers" is laughable. If the "strategerists" are compelled to make predictions, it is the public reaction to Nixon's impeachment they should be looking to (i.e., wrong-doers exposed; renewal of commitment to honest and open government).

As Nichol's points out:

The notion that impeachment is “bad politics” for an opposition party simply isn’t grounded in reality. Of the nine instances when impeachment resolutions were filed against presidents, the opposition party secured the presidency in the next election seven times—most recently when Bush succeeded Clinton. After members of an opposition party pressed for impeachment in Congress, that party has almost always maintained or improved its position in the House at the next general election. After conservative Republicans proposed Truman’s impeachment in the fall of 1952, their party took control of both the House and the presidency. Democrats who moved to impeach Nixon in the summer of 1974 dramatically increased their presence in the House that fall. Even after Republicans bungled their impeachment of Clinton, their party retained control of the House—losing just five seats in the 1998 election that preceded the impeachment vote, and just two in the 2000 election that followed it. And, of course, they also captured the White House.

As I have pointed out in post #104 (and in many other posts, the bottom line is this).

The weak Dem image is the biggest problems the Dems have. If they could explode that image, they could truly become a permanent majority. Impeachment is not just be the right thing to do, it is the winning thing to do because it is the most effective thing they could do to explode the "weak dem" image, even if it turns out to be a "charge of the light brigade."

Their is no downside risk that is not more than balanced by an upside benefit (both moral and political).

But, even if you believe it is all risk and no benefit, when principle demands action, you act or betray principle. We take oaths and make commitments to do hard and frightening things in advance so that when the time comes, we Just Do It, win or lose, however scary or difficult "It" may be.

If we expected it to be a cake walk for Members of Congress to "support and defend" we wouldn't ask them to swear to do it.

[eridani]

162. The general public was INFORMED about Nixon

--they don't have a clue about the depths of depravity of the current administration. That's why we need at least a year of investigative headlines so that this sinks in good.

[pat_k]

167. Why? Draft the articles, make the case. We have ALL the necessary facts.

As I just http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2765234">replied to another post:

We have all the necessary facts. We have had them for years. . .

. . . There is nothing to investigate. Nothing to look for. Asserting that we need to investigate negates the case we have. It is a statment the countless citizens, elected bodies, and good government groups who are demanding impeachment are WRONG. It exonerates Bush of the charges they have brought against him. It is a delaying tactic -- an escape from duty that it extremely counterproductive; it is essentially a lie. . ."

[eridani]

178. By "we" you mean the activists who use those internets pipes

By "we" I mean the vast majority of the public which knows far, far more about American Idol. If we (us internets activists) can't get that other "we" to wake up, this is going exactly nowhere.

[pat_k]

179. The Majority that the Newsweek poll found

. . .want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress.

http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html

[Time for change]

126. But our Congressional representatives were elected by us

They are given the Constitutional responsibility for impeachment, among many other things. They are our leaders, and we count on them to do what is right.

Just becaues past impeachments have bee largely political (and I don't believe that Nixon's impeachment was mostly political, and I also believe that Andrew Johnson's impeachment was warranted), that doesn't mean that our current leaders have to make it a political issue. They can pursue investigations, followed by impeachment, as part of their Constitutional duty.

[Maryland Liberal]

106. Impeachment = YES, Here's the plan

1. Impeach the Bushie and the shooter at the same time. The charge is murder. What else would you call going to war under false pretense?

2. Speaker Pelosi becomes Madame President.

3. All the the Democtatic bills which will have a hard time passing in the next congress- will sail right through.

4. The Bushie and the shooter go to jail for their crimes.

5. Any wingnut who votes against impeachment sets himself up for election defeat next cycle.

Bottom Line - We have everything to gain - and nothing to lose. If impeachment is sucessfull - Our bills sail through. If it is not sucessfull, alot of wingnut Senators have tied themselves to Mr. 30% popular Bushie.

[Time for change]

128. Welcome to DU Maryland liberal

I love that scenario -- not sure that it will work like that, but it's worth hoping for.

:toast:

[Aviation Pro]

108. Well said....

...I was hesitant on calling for the immediate impeachment of Little Monkey and Small Dick "Fucking" Cheney, opting for the investigation route first. Now that I've finished reading Al Franken's excellent book "The Truth With Jokes" you can place me uncategorically in the swiftly investigate and submit the articles column.

They and their whole criminal cabal must be removed from office.

[Time for change]

129. Thanks -- sounds like a very worth while book

I loved "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell them"

[Homer Wells]

130. I think, if Bush goes ahead with

preemptively striking Iran, we may have NO choice but to start impeachment proceedings against him.
In order for any President to wage war, he must have the approval of Congress, and I really do not think our New Congress will offer up enough support for him to have the luxury of a legally declared war.
I imagine if he can arrange for another 9/11 type disaster, perhaps he could pull the wool over the sheeples eyes, but that could be disastrous for the Republicans in the future.

[Time for change]

133. God forbid that should happen

I wonder if having impeachment proceedings under way would be a deterrent or an impetus to that?

[westerebus]

147. What have they got to lose?

The last act of defiance is to set the world afire! You may not like it and it surley sucks the big one,but Bush is still president. That's commander and chief even under impeachment. Impeachment is the consideration that the crime mets the standard for removal from office. Do you really want to take that bet with this congress? Bye the bye, I belive the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may have something to say. Take a breath. Get the troops home. BOIL THE FROG.

[stepnw1f]

134. Why Does Will Pitt and Skinner Hate America?

:sarcasm: :crazy:

I believe Bush will be impeached or will have to step down before his tenure as President is up. This is my prediction....

[Old and In the Way]

145. great thread!

If the actions of this administration don't meet the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, I really don't know what the operative definition of justifiable impeachment would be. Yes, we need investigations. There is a process that has to be followed. And impeachment should be "off the table" until the results of the investigations demand it be put "on the table".

Here's my concern...if this administration is guilty of impeachable offenses, how does that influence their decisions going forward? As long as they had control of Congress, they could go about their business with little concern about their collective futures. Now that they have lost control of Congress, what is the operative calculus that drives their decisions? Impeachment is a slow deliberative process. Starting a war takes, what? a few generals and the POTUS to pull the trigger? What happens if they make a unilateral decision to attack Iran? Will the domestic reaction justify declaring martial law? While we hold some of the cards, this administration still holds the deck....it's their game until we take it away from them.

[Time for change]

159. Very good point -- We're still saddled with the most irresponsible

president in our history. In all the excitement over winning Congress I think that some may have forgotten about that. It remains to be seen how much destructive power he is still able to wield.

[Thomas_Paine1776]

157. No duh, the people know its "necessary," it just takes 67 votes to remove them.

We know its necessary, we've known that for 5 years, so why dont' we start counting the votes.

[vkobaya]

163. Opposition to Impeachment

I think impeachment is inevitable <b>if</b> the
Democrats exercise their Congressional oversight and
investigation job as they should. Hard to understand why
Pelosi is opposed to impeachment. I can see two reasons, one
she is too gutless to take the higher road and intends to
block the Democrats from exercising the oversight and
investigation prerogatives. The second is that it is a ploy,
so that she can say after Bush has been impeached that she
always opposed it to try to forestall the Republicans taking
revenvge by impeaching a Democratic president in the future. I
hope her reasoning is the second, but from what I've seen of
her, I don't hold out much hope.

[Time for change]

165. There is also another possibility

She has not discouraged investigations into the Bush administration crimes at all -- to the contrary, she has encouraged them. She has only said that impeachment is "off the table". So, if the investigations show clear evidence of impeachable offenses (which they undoubtedly will), then she can at that time say that she has no choice but to put impeachment back on the table -- which is true.

[Independent_Liberal]

168. Time for Change, if you're interested...

I thought you'd like to read how I think it will all play out.

Items #1-5 have already occurred. #6-23 are what I think is still to come.

IRAQ, PLAME, ABRAMOFF, BIG OIL, DOJ, FBI, CIA, DIA, DOD, CENTCOM, NORAD, NSC, NSA, FAA, ETC.
All Roads Lead To
9/11 COMMISSION COVER-UP

Endgame: The Perfect Storm
What sets it off?

1. Some interesting things start to come to light at the William Jefferson Capitol Hill FBI raid hearings. A few whistleblowers step forward at the open and closed door House and Senate subcommittee hearings on NSA domestic spying and the Pentagon’s 9/11 “Able Danger” program and more interesting info is revealed. More damaging info is revealed at the House and Senate Katrina hearings.
2. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald manages to obtain info from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in the CIA Leak investigation. This is related to missing emails from Cheney’s office and White House documents requested by Federal Judge Reggie Walton. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage provides some information to Fitzgerald on Robert Novak and the leak.
3. The Democrats win back Congress and the majority of the Governorships in the November 2006 midterm elections. They get a solid majority in the House and a narrow majority in the Senate.
4. Rumsfeld resigns after the election.
5. Bush chooses Robert Gates from James Baker’s Iraq Study Group to replace Rumsfeld.
6. After Bob Ney’s guilty plea, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Criminal Division, Federal Prosecutors and Senate Investigators get some cooperation in the Abramoff case and the “Duke” Cunningham bribery case. A GOP security aide comes forward with evidence relating to New Hampshire phone jamming at a court testimony. Jack gives up all the information he has on everything including defrauded Indian tribes, gaming casinos, lobbying firms, Greenberg Traurig, illegal campaign contributions sent to GOP Congress people, foreign influence peddling, illegal arms trafficking, the American Turkish Council, Denny Hastert’s ties to Turkish spies and his shady housing deals, the SunCruz investigation, Guam, the support of forced abortion and sex slavery in the Marianas, Adam Kidan, Michael Scanlon, Tony Rudy, Neil Volz, David Safavian, Grover Norquist, John Colyandro, Jim Ellis, Tom DeLay’s misuse of the FAA and the DHS, his trips to Russia and the people who turned up dead in his district, DeLay’s ARMPAC, Ney’s golf outings in Scotland, his ties to Iran and use of secret government wiretapping operations, Americans for Tax Reform fraud, Carl Gutierrez, Felix Camacho, Froilan Tenorio, Haley Barbour, Ernie Fletcher and the Merit system scandal, Bob Taft, Tom Noe and Coingate, Ken Blackwell’s stocks in Halliburton, Leandro Aragoncillo and Philippine spy espionage, mobsters and Kidan’s link to a Sicilian mafia figure, the Gus Boulis murder case, New Hampshire phone jamming, stolen computers from the Ohio Democratic Headquarters, terrorists at casinos, 9/11 and Mohammad Atta, the Royal Sons LLC plane from Florida with 5.5 tons of cocaine that was raided by the FBI, Saudi money, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and Enron, Eric Cantor and AIPAC lobbyists, John Sweeney and Wal-Mart PAC, Charles Taylor and the Russian bank, Tyco, Enron power plant deals, heroin trafficking, money laundering, GOP prostitution rings and pedophiles with ties to Jeff Gannon, child prostitution and sex predator operations in the Marianas, Gale Norton’s Interior Department, J. Steven Griles, Roger Stilwell, Wally O’Dell and Diebold, HAVA, Homeland Security rackets, Ralph Reed, etc. Randy gives up all info on Porter Goss, Kyle Foggo, Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, MZM, Inc., ADCS, Inc., Archer Logistics, Group W advisors, defense contractors, creation of phony defense companies to get $700,000,000 through earmarks for GOP TV ads, the Wilkes-funded prostitution ring involving Homeland Security Contractor Shirlington Limousine and Transportation Services and hooker and poker parties at the Watergate Hotel. Terrence Gasper rats out a few players in Coingate and Randy, Noe and Ney reveal all their secret Shell Companies who bilked millions while aiding Abramoff/Marianas Islands/Indian Gaming/Rumsfeld’s Pentagon and it’s also revealed that some Republican Congresspersons and Senators had sex while housed in Abramoff's Safe Houses and it wasn't the kind of sex the Dobson's like to talk about. The 60 House Appropriations Committee Investigators who were fired from the investigative staff by Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis in the Hastert/Bid-Rigging/Contractors/Appropriations cover-up go to the DOJ. They blow the whistle on several Republican leaders in the House, Senate and Executive Branch. All this doo doo hits the fan and Hastert, Sweeney, Cantor, John Doolittle, Dana Rohrabacher, Richard Pombo, Roy Blunt, Louis Gohmert, Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Tom Feeney, Conrad Burns, Virgil Goode, Duncan Hunter, Katherine Harris, Brian Bilbray, etc. are all indicted as well as their staff members (Wilkes is later indicted himself). Also, Austin, Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle indicts John Cornyn on charges relating to Abramoff-DeLay money, the SEC charges Bill Frist for his insider trading and Tom Reynolds, John Shimkus, Kirk Fordham, Scott Palmer, Rodney Alexander, John Boehner, Jim Kolbe, Ken Calvert, etc. get into some legal trouble in the FBI and House Ethics Committee investigations into the Mark Foley Congressional page sex scandal.
7. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is indicted by Fitzgerald for perjury and obstruction of justice and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith is brought up on espionage charges in the AIPAC case and the forged Niger documents background comes to light from Italian Intelligence. Richard Perle gets implicated in AIPAC as well.
8. Fitzgerald indicts Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for obstruction of justice and Rove is later indicted in the Abramoff investigation (this is related to visits to the White House by Jack and secret meetings set up by Norquist). The number of times Gannon visited the White House later becomes a major news story.
9. Bird flu and other scare viruses prove to be wrong, numbers of illegals in US turn out not to be huge amounts of Mexicans but folks from other countries who've come in under radar, a bunch of info comes to light about massive stock manipulation, hedges and other funds come under scrutiny for bilking average investors and Abu Ghraib pictures that weren’t released come out.
10. An Independent Commission to investigate the NSA wiretaps is set up. NSA staffer Russell Tice gives testimony before the Commission. Shortly after, the citizens’ appointed special grand jury to investigate torture allegations is set up.
11. Edmonds v. DOJ – FBI translator Sibel Edmonds takes her case with the DOJ on FBI cover-ups to one of the Federal Courts. At the same time, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer gets an independent grand jury investigation into the 9/11 events in New York City going. Some family members are alleging a government cover-up. An Independent Prosecutor is appointed to investigate the World Trade Center EPA case, insurance fraud and other unsolved crimes related to the events.
12. Happy New Year. January 2007, 110th Congress, 1st Session – The new Congress is sworn in (with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Conyers as House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Henry Waxman as House Government Reform Committee Chairman and Louise Slaughter as House Rules Committee Chairwoman).
13. Cheney’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby is convicted and he implicates Cheney. A bunch of info comes to light about Plame, Halliburton no-bid contracts and Iraq corruption, Iraq contractors scum with “Bag Operations” that netted millions to Neocons, AIPAC, the Energy Task Force and secret energy meetings, Aspen’s Turning and Mexico influence peddling. Cheney is indicted by Fitzgerald for treason, conspiracy, espionage, fraud, grand larceny and tax evasion. Calls are made for his resignation and his head on a silver platter. Cheney resigns. He claims he’s leaving because of health problems.
14. Congress forces Bush to appoint John McCain as Vice President. Both houses of Congress vote overwhelmingly to confirm Vice President McCain.
15. Conyers sets up a House Select Fact Finding Committee to investigate everything (Downing Street Memos, Plame, White House Iraq Group, Iran-Syria Operations Group, Nigerian bribes, AIPAC/Larry Franklin/Steven Rosen/Keith Weissman/Michael Ledeen/Manucher Ghorbanifar, Niger forgeries, depleted uranium, Patriot Act and IRS abuses, Dubai Ports deals, mining disasters, Edmonds FBI whistleblower case, NSA, Gannon, Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, Marsh & Knoll Management, Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate, Alfonso Jackson and HUD contracts, financial improprieties involving former FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford, Enron, Halliburton-Kellogg Brown & Root, Carlyle, Harken, Bechtel, WorldCom, election fraud, Coingate, torture of prisoners, FEMA’s Katrina response, Pat Tillman’s death, Pentagon psyops units and secret government propaganda operations in the Office of Special Plans, etc.). Hearings begin and subpoenas are issued. Several whistleblowers from the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, FAA, NSC, State Department and Pentagon step forward to testify. The public hearings are broadcast on television 24/7. A few Independent Counsels show Congress their findings from grand jury investigations. Several insiders from AT&T, Bell South and Verizon are forced to release info on phone records and data collected by the NSA. And Waxman opens an investigation into Halliburton war profiteering and examines reports from the GAO. Other big House investigations: Cover-ups of pre-9/11 intelligence, 9/11 Commission cover-ups, 9/11 Commission members with ties to oil companies and lobbyists, Larry Silverstein, Paul Bremer, key witnesses left out of the official 9/11 Report, the identification of Atta by “Able Danger,” Christine Todd Whitman and the EPA, 9/11 related corruption in government offices, cover-ups involving Congress people, Federal Judges and DOJ personnel, drug trafficking and money laundering, illegal weapon sales, pre-9/11 insider trading, manipulation of pre-9/11 FBI intercepts, corruption surrounding Supreme Court Justices, Pentagon tapes, NORAD tapes, FBI wiretap translations, the DeLay-Abramoff-SunCruz-Boulis-Mob-Atta connections, destruction of 9/11 FAA tapes, Melek Can Dickerson and the American Turkish Council, Pakistan-ISI connections, Hastert-Abramoff-Livingston Group-Brewster Jennings-MIC Inc.-ATC-ATAA-AIPAC-Feith-Perle connections, penetration of the FBI, AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, John O’Neill’s murder, Enron Afghani pipeline deals, the death of Enron executive Cliff Baxter and Arthur Anderson’s destruction of Enron documents. After it’s revealed that the 9/11 Commission was a fraud and that the 9/11 Commission Report was filled with distortions, this causes a public outrage and a demand for all Commissioners and Counsels to the Commission to testify under oath before all the House Committees and Subcommittees on Government Reform, Judiciary, National Security and Oversight and Investigations and forces a complete overhaul of the Commission and the installment of a new independent investigation as was wanted by the Jersey girls.
16. The investigation into Senator Paul Wellstone’s 2002 plane crash death is reopened.
17. The Senate sets up an Investigative Committee to investigate Iraq intelligence, Phase II, Plame, NSA, 9/11 oddities, Energy Commission cover-ups and other corruption, waste, fraud and abuse and an Independent Prosecutor is appointed. Senate hearings begin and Sibel Edmonds, Richard Grove, Indira Sangh, Russell Tice, Richard Clarke, Coleen Rowley, James Comey, Bunny Greenhouse and Lawrence Wilkerson all step forward as witnesses. Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern and Joseph Wilson make appearances before the hearings and provide information to the Office of the Independent Counsel. Ted Kennedy chairs the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Office of Abramoff Special Prosecution Force brings evidence before the Senate. A few other things that get looked into by the Senate include: 1. The cover-up of the cost of the Medicare Bill that the administration asked certain individuals to hide before Congress. 2. John Negroponte's involvement with the School of the Americas and the death squads in South America. This also ropes in Henry Kissinger as well. Michael Hayden, Gonzales, etc. get implicated in this investigation too, when it expands into Abu Ghraib abuses, along with more damning info on what went on in NSA. Porter Goss, Denny Hastert and others testify against these folks, since that power play that Gonzales, Negroponte, etc. engineered to claim the right to searching Congressional offices got folks like Hastert upset. As a result, the School of the Americas will be shut down. 3. Involvement of ChoicePoint in various efforts in orchestrating election fraud in Florida, Ohio, and other places here and their involvement in election fraud in Mexico that helps Obrador force a new election and dismiss the current corrupted results.
18. As a part of Edmonds and other whistleblowers coming forward on the AIPAC, Plame, and other investigations, this forces a reopening of the investigation of David Kelly’s death (British documents show that it was murder), Judith Miller's complete knowledge of that event, and a complete investigation into whether Brewster Jennings was close to exposing a plot to plant WMD's in northern Iraq that might have happened had Brewster Jennings not been shut down by the Plamegate affair. The House and Senate do joint inquiries into: 1. What pressure BushCo had on trying to accelerate the public airing of the latest terrorist plot before British Intelligence wanted to expose it, thereby losing the opportunity to arrest and contain more folks that were involved in that conspiracy. Related to this, it is looked into who in the Bush administration, and for what reasons, might have leaked A.Q. Khan's name out prematurely, which might have lead to some escaping to further carry out the London subway bombing raids later. 2. What sort of data mining that Bushco wanted to do through Google, Yahoo, AT&T, etc. over and above the NSA wiretaps. It is looked into whether Google or other search engines were asked to have their search hits manipulated at certain times to censor information on sensitive events, etc. too. (I personally suspect that Google was asked to censor certain hits like those having to do with Sibel Edmonds at the time that Larry Franklin was arrested when the AIPAC spy scandal became exposed publicly.)
19. United States v. Bush – One of the whistleblower cases goes to the Supreme Court. One of the conservative justices breaks ranks and sides with the liberals on the matter. It is ruled that Bush must turn over documents on FBI cover-ups from the DOJ Inspector General’s office based on allegations by Edmonds and others. Bush refuses to comply. The Senate holds a censure vote.
20. Congress motions to impeach Bush. Impeachment proceedings and hearings begin. The House Judiciary Committee begins voting on articles of impeachment. 14 articles are voted out of the Committee including 1. Lying to Congress 2. Abuse of Power 3. Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and Contempt of Congress 4. Disclosing Classified Information 5. Criminal Negligence 6. Bribery, Fraud, Theft and Embezzlement 7. War Crimes 8. Endangering the Security of the Nation 9. Conspiracy 10. Defrauding the Government 11. Negligent Homicide and Reckless Endangerment 12. Biological Weapons 13. Military Action Without Approval from Congress 14. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against the People.
21. A small delegation of Congressional Republicans led by Dick Lugar and Trent Lott go up to the White House and urge Bush to resign. They make it clear to him that he’s lost all support from the public and his base and that impeachment, conviction and removal from office is inevitable.
22. Bush resigns to avoid impeachment and get a pardon. He fakes an illness.
23. McCain is sworn in as President. He appoints George Pataki as his Vice President. Both houses of Congress vote to confirm Pataki. McCain accepts the resignations of all the Bush cabinet members and senior White House staff. And of course, McCain is Jerry Ford until January 2009.

[westerebus]

170. AMEN!

Thought I don't think its going to happen. For right now can we get the troops out of Iraq.

[Independent_Liberal]

172. Oh yes, it will happen. It has to happen.

No way we can get them out with the Busheviks still at the helm. It can't wait two years. Bush must go.

[Independent_Liberal]

173. BTW...

Just ask autorank. He'd tell you I'm spot on. He's an expert on the "shadow government" and the CIA.

[AntiFascist]

174. Your post has restored my faith...

but what if Pelosi comes along saying, "oh, this all in the past. It's time to start a new phase of working with Republicans <besides, do you really think we have the nerve to take on the Shadow Government?>"

[Time for change]

175. Great scenario

Did you write predictions 1-5 before or after they happened?

I would like to add (though I don't believe they will occur):

24. Investigations determined that the Bush administration planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks.......

25. Investigations into the 2000 and 2004 elections determine beyond a doubt that Al Gore and John Kerry were the respective winners. A special commission consequently annuls the Bush presidency.

26. Because of the public outrage over event #s 24 and 25 (and because the Republicans no that they have no chance of winning in 08), the Republicans graciously refuse to put up a candidate for President in 2008.

[USA_1]

176. This Is What Dems Should Be Pursuing...

instead, they are wasting time on promoting the stupid military draft.


Kiss the 2008 election good bye!

[NotGivingUp]

177. impeachment is called for and necessary.