Those who fail to impeach are as guilty as Bush in his crimes against humanity

[let us vote]

Why is there a criminal justice system if not to convict the guilty? Why did the Constitution provide for impeachment if not to require good members of Congress to impeach in the current situation? This is not about sex. It's about mass murder, torture, crimes against humanity, etc.

There is no doubt that Bush is a mass murderer. He has killed for money. He lied to the American people in order to put troops into harms way for money. He endangered the lives of every member of a CIA network in order to continue the killing for money. He threw out the Constitutional protection of habeas corpus and backed torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions - for power and money.

No criminal in any prison in the United States is as much of a danger to society as Bush and Cheney. To fail to impeach the most dangerous criminals from positions in which they could destroy all life on Earth is irresponsible and a violation of the oaths of everyone who fails to stand up for impeachment. Every member of Congress who fails to impeach should be thrown out for perjury and for acting as an accomplice in crimes against humanity. Any member of Congress who fails to support impeachment belongs in jail, right next to Bush and Cheney.

The people spoke on November 7th. Every member of Congress who fails to stand up for impeachment has betrayed the voters and ignored the election results as much as Bush did in 2000.

[mike_c]

1. hear, hear...! K&R!

:applause:

[AntiFascist]

2. K&R and welcome to DU! n/t

[zreosumgame]

3. man, at least let them take control before being so over-dramatic

'if they don't impeach this instant I will hold my breath and kick my heels)' is a stupid attitude

[let us vote]

5. Clinton's impeachment was about sex, not about crimes against humanity

Bush is more comparable to Hitler than to Clinton.

[zreosumgame]

8. do you have a point?

that reply was so off-point I laughed. it was not even about sex, it was about a deep personal hatred by some for both the Clinton's, and monica was weak and young and dumb enough to play into it. they just used the sexual part as emotional blackmail against Hillary and Bill.

[elocs]

19. Sorry,

had Clinton not lied under oath, there would have been no impeachment. Perjury is not as glamorous as sex, but that is what it was.

[Kelly Rupert]

44. It was about perjury. Clean and simple.

A ridiculous witch-hunt, but still a legally valid justification, if not an ethically justifiable one.

[rateyes]

77. Sorry, but the Constitution calls for impeachment

for HIGH CRIMES and HIGH MISDEMEANORS. Perjury in a civil lawsuit about sex with an intern doesn't cut it as legal justification for impeachment.

Lying to get us into war, now that's a different story.

[truedelphi]

79. Lying to get a nation into war

And the Downing Street Memos stand as proof

If Cinton had handled the Iraq war the way Bush has, the press would be screaming to the heavens that Clinton is on Al Queda's side

And let's not forget Katrina

Or the President signing off on AT & T wire tap spying

[rateyes]

81. You are correct...

Fact is...we are a signatory nation to the UN Charter...the mother of all treaties. The Constitution says that all treaties are part of the supreme law of the land. Because Bush did not go to the UN for a second resolution authorizing aggression against the sovereign nation of Iraq, ordering the troops in was a high crime. Since the POTUS is NOT above the law, the congress have a DUTY under the Constitution by the OATH they took to uphold it, to IMPEACH BUSH. If they don't impeach Bush for this high crime, they have themselves violated their oaths.

[Kelly Rupert]

87. It's pretty easy to get out of that one too, unfortunately.

If you can make a reasonable case that Saddam was violating the conditions of the Gulf War cease-fire by refusing to submit to further inspections (regardless of his possessions of WMDs), then the invasion was authorized by the resolution that authorized the Gulf War.

Proving criminal action by a head of state is rather difficult, especially when there is a reasonable reading of law that allows his or her actions.

[rateyes]

89. The authorization required him to get a second resolution

and he was going for one when he realized he would not get it, so went in anyway. Of course, there are other clear violations, and it is a violation of Congress' oath not to hold him accountable to Constitutional law.

[truedelphi]

92. Plenty of folks who used to work at the Pentagon

And other high places are probably willing to testify how this admisnstration made it mandatory to cook the books so the lie is established as to the need to fight Iraq.

A great many decent policy majkers have been forced to go away because either one) they were pushed out or two) they couldn't stomach Rumsfeld

[Kelly Rupert]

86. Lying to get a nation into war is reprehensible and is cause for

that person's party to be voted out and never returned to office. It isn't a crime.

Bungling a hurricane response is reprehensible. It is not a crime.

The wiretap scandal is a horrible abuse of power. It may be our best attempt at proving a crime. However, an overreaching Federal agency is not exactly grounds for impeachment; every year hundreds of regulations are overturned because they exceed their promulgating body's mandate.

[zreosumgame]

84. actually no to both you and the other above who claim this

If it was so 'clean and simple' then please tell the EXACT WORDS cited in the impeachment hearing that contained the lie? And no, it was not 'I did not have sex with that woman' since that was not under oath. But please do inform us the exact words that constituted perjury?

[Kelly Rupert]

85. Sure. From his sworn deposition in the Paula Jones case:

"Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No."

"Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth...I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm

If you say that "sexual relations" includes repeated oral sex, then those would indeed be untrue statements made under oath. Perjury, plain and simple. The only world in which Clinton could be said to have not committed perjury is one in which oral sex is neither considered "sexual relations" or part of a "sexual affair." Now, the Clinton impeachment was a ridiculous witch-hunt, true. But let's not go about pretending that he hadn't done anything that a reasonable person would not find to be perjury.

[zreosumgame]

88. there was a pre-determined definition that is different then you think

the judge set a definition of sexual relations. taken purely from that definition then, as the full Senate concluded, he did NOT.

[okieinpain]

80. I agree, there are more important issues, then payback on bush.

[mdmc]

4. Most of those in power enabled w. to use fear to bring us to war

I expect no less from them; they will not lead.

[cali]

6. What

unadulterated bullshit. Oh, and there's plenty of LEGAL doubt that bush is a mass murderer. As if the Congress would ever impeach him for that. Many of them voted for the IWR. So are they accessories in your fevered mind?

Your post is one of those that gets everything wrong. Just as an example, your claim that no criminal in prison is as much a danger to society as bush and cheney. That's just a ludicrous comparison. What does one have to do with the other? Even good heads of state with immense power, present a greater danger to society than a criminal. They have greater means to do harm.

As for your obscene "purge all who don't think like me" mentality, it's disturbing to say the least. Proposing that every member of Congress who disagrees with almighty you, should be thrown out for perjury and for acting as an accomplice in crimes against humanity, is repugnant.

Hey, I think that people like you who exhibit clearly totalitarian leaning should be put in mental institutions. (heavy sarcasm)

[let us vote]

9. With all due respect, do you even know the first thing about Bush and Cheney?

Have you ever heard of Abu Graib or Guantanamo or about the round-up that have occurred in this country or about the attacks on the Constitution, habeas corpus, or our civil rights? Did you know about the 700,000 dead civilians mostly women and children (and that's according to conservative figures)? Did you ever hear of Valerie Plame? Did you ever hear of Padilla?

[cali]

11. Yes I know quite a bit about bushco.

Yes, I've heard of Abu Ghrib. Yes, I know about Gitmo. Yes, I know about the post 9/11 roundups. I've read the entire Patriot Act. I exercise due diligence regarding what's going on in my country, so yes I know about Plame and Padilla and the Military Commissions Act.

and I know you didn't address the points I made in my post and that that which you expressed in your OP is truly twisted and disturbing shit.

[let us vote]

14. And you don't consider what they did a crime?

I don't really think we have a frame of reference on which to communicate?

[cali]

18. Did I say that? No.

I think- with a stress on that being my personal considered opinion- that bush is guilty of impeachable offenses. But I also believe that investigations are an imperative for a myriad of reasons. I won't go into them, but suffice to say, they range from drawing the public into an open and democratic process to presenting an iron clad case that makes it exceedingly difficult for House Members to vote against.

As for my personal opinion about whether bush is the evilest monster to ever set foot on the world stage, well let's just say it's irrelevant to this discussion.

[AntiFascist]

13. Also, are they even aware that...

Congress, the UN, and the American people were totally mislead and frightened into going along with war in Iraq? The threat that there would be mushroom clouds on the horizon is a very serious one, deserving of prosecution in and of itself.

[cali]

20. Have you ever considered

living in reality? The threat of a mushroom cloud is not grounds for impeachment.

[AntiFascist]

29. When you consider all the effort that went into fabricating evidence...

and biasing intelligence reports, it certainly is!

[Kelly Rupert]

45. Since when is exaggeration criminal?

[AntiFascist]

51. Apparently lying is, even if just about a blowjob n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

55. Clinton was under oath.

I'm not saying Bush's actions weren't a hundred thousand times worse. I'm saying that Clinton's were illegal and blatantly so, while Bush's, as far as we know, may or may not have been.

[AntiFascist]

83. The key issue is whether or not Bush and/or Cheney conspired...

in these actions. There seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest foul play, the investigations will hopefully get to the bottom of it. Even if Bush is not implicated, bringing this to the surface could reveal the true intent behind the "war on terror." Notice how they are already coming "clean" on whether the war is really just about the oil.

[sal paradise]

7. Not that I completely disagree with you, but...

the phrase "the people spoke" is being thrown around in generalized terms way too often since the elections. I sincerely doubt that the people "spoke" of a desire to impeach President Bush. Its obvious that many of them disagree strongly with certain decisions he has made, and it seems like he is running scared and prepared to make changes. Remember that one of the reasons that the Democrats took back control of congress was the abundance of centrist and moderate Democrats, many of whom sometimes sound a lot more like conservatives. Without them, those voters would have gone red, and I doubt all those people are screaming for impeachment. In addition, as we saw in the 90's, an impeachment would cause serious politcal upheavel, distraction and confusion that isn't necessary at this particular time. I think the congress should focus on the problems that have been entrusted to fix, rather than going on a witch hunt.

[The Count]

10. Not impeaching = condoning.

Still, not quite "as guilty as" - it's good to keep perspective. But, impeach, by all means.

[elocs]

21. Impeachment=Indictment

Indictment without conviction=OJ. Reality is a harsh mistress, but that is where our Party's leaders live. Many here do not.

[BlooInBloo]

12. ... Given the opportunity, of course.

[cali]

15. More things wrong with your post.

Impeachment is not part of the criminal justice system. Impeachment is not about mass murder, torture or crimes against humanity. Should he be impeached, I can guarantee you that not one of those items will be included in the articles.

Oh, and I really doubt that we're in imminent peril of being wiped out by bushco, along with all other things. Man, did you take an immersion course in hyperbole, or what?

[pinto]

16. I see your point, but disagree with some of the assumptions.

"Those who fail to impeach are as guilty" is a broad, shotgun approach in the impeachment debate. There's more than one way to skin a cat. :thumbsup:

"Why is there a criminal justice system if not to convict the guilty?" is simply wrong. The justice system exists to ascertain innocence or guilt, presupposing the innocence of the accused.

And, impeachment isn't a criminal trial or part of the criminal justice system, it's a political action to remove an official from elected or appointed office.

Thanks.

[LittleClarkie]

17. The people spoke? Which candidate ran on the impeachment issue?

They spoke more about corruption and the war. Now if investigations reveal enough evidence for impeachment, then we'll see what the Dems do.

[elocs]

22. Exactly! How many of our candidates ran on an impeachment platform?

How many were out there making speeches about how Bush should be impeached with the throngs of people chanting, "Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!"? Yeah, I thought so.

[Pacifist Patriot]

58. I know one Congressional candidate that fits that description...

including some of the crowds he spoke to.

He didn't win. Shrank the incumbents margin considerable, but he didn't win.

[elocs]

64. Well, that's 1 out of 435. And it's probably because he was going to lose anyway.

From those running who had a chance to win I don't think you heard more than a peep. If impeachment had such overwhelming support during the campaign one would think it would have been the highlight of each and every speech given. No, it was our worst kept secret yet it sure rolled out front and center after we won.

[Pacifist Patriot]

66. LOL! Yep....

It was a long shot. If he'd won (and I did indeed vote for him. He was the Dem candidate after all.), I'd have dropped dead of a heart attack. So it's not like I'd have reeped the benefits anyway. Cheers!

[elocs]

70. Well, then, why not let it all hang out?

I don't want to be disingenuous about impeachment since I was one who said that those screaming for it months ago should cool their jets before the election because I did not think it would play well to the general public. Since the election the cries for impeachment have become more shrill and demanding to the point of threatening to impeach our own Democratic Party leaders if they do not move to impeach even though Pelosi has said it is off the table and Conyers agrees. I would like to see Bush convicted, but apparently there are those who would be satisfied with impeachment and then watch Bush walk. In everyday life, DAs who indict when they know there is no chance of conviction usually pay a price for it in the next election because it looks vindictive to people. I would like to see the Democratic Party remain in power for many years and I trust Pelosi to do what is right even in the face of the screams and demands for impeachment right now.

[Pacifist Patriot]

74. My personal opinion is...

I don't care how he comes to pay the piper, but eventually I'd like to see his Karma hit his Dogma.

[elocs]

75. The trouble with Karma is

that sometimes what goes around, comes around, and sometimes it does not. Sometimes people get what they deserve and sometimes people get what they do not deserve. The Bible says that the rain falls and the sun shines upon the just and the unjust. Life is unfair and sometimes the wicked prosper--probably too often, but I get your point.

[txindy]

95. Karma worked this time and the OP got what he deserved - a tombstone. n/t

[rinsd]

72. 1 out of 21 candidates in the general endorsed by ImpeachPac (nt)

[Eric J in MN]

23. We tried to stop Bush in 2004.

But not wanting to make Cheney the president doesn't make one a war criminal.

[elocs]

24. Another example of Democrats threatening to eat their own.

Why not just say that if they do not impeach that you will hold your breath until your head explodes? Because unless there is an impeachment coming up very soon there will be a lot of exploding heads here. We just win an election a couple of weeks ago and already our Party's leaders are being threaten with impeachment if they do not impeach. What about conviction? That is what makes impeachment meaningful because Nixon resigned when he knew he would be impeached AND convicted.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Agreed.

"I'm just following orders," isn't an excuse. Neither is "I'm just playing politics."

[natrat]

26. fuck impeachment-thats history-ban e voting thats our future nt

[Hubert Flottz]

27. K&R

And Agree!

[adamuu]

28. hyperbole n/t

[Tom Joad]

30. This war, and the lies that surround it, was not a mere "mistake". It was

a crime against humanity.

[Kelly Rupert]

46. Pity that starting stupid wars isn't prohibited by statute.

[greenman3610]

31. yes, and there's not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Al Gore

remember that one?

fuck absolutism.

[Quantess]

49. Somebody said that?

:spray:

[Kelly Rupert]

76. You do remember the Naderites, don't you?

The Green Party is full of "but they're all the SAME" kooks.

[Cocoa]

32. you say some things that aren't true

the Constitution does not require impeachment.

The people didn't vote for impeachment.

[Gregorian]

33. Article Two Section 4: Impeachment (SHALL be removed)

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


SHALL be removed. There is no choice. It is a demand.

Now one could argue that investigations are a choice. BUT, we already know that crimes have taken place.

He shall be impeached.

I should mention that the crimes are defined. However, we aren't in need of finding any definitions via the House of Representatives, as laws have been broken.

[Cocoa]

34. no

"on impeachment and conviction" makes it conditional.

[Gregorian]

38. That makes it sound like government officials are above the law.

Am I trying to be too black and white?

Maybe I didn't understand your reply.

[Cocoa]

39. you misread the grammar

you stressed the word "shall" as if that proved impeachment is mandatory.

That misreads the grammar. Removal is called for after, i.e. if, impeachment and conviction.

Neither the impeachment nor the conviction is mandatory. That is the decision of the congresspersons.

[Gregorian]

41. I read too much into it.

I let the excitement get to me.


It's no different than a cop letting you walk after you've done something illegal. It's happened to me when I was a kid.

Damn. Back to the drawing board. I don't think we have much to discuss. It's public record that these guys have violated a brazillian laws. It's just a matter of time.


Thanks for bringing me back to my senses. Appreciate it.

[truedelphi]

61. Exactly! n/t

[BillORightsMan]

35. Some reasons for impeachment

(Re-Written) DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE

by, Roger Drowne EC www.RogerART.com
First published on the 4th of July 2001

:patriot:

To be Sure, the 110th Congress WILL begin hearings into a myriad of things and the Administration will amp up its information blockade.

Watch and Listen.

Kay and ARRRRR!!!

[Stinky The Clown]

36. I'm an impeachment hawk and I endorse this message.

[nebenaube]

37. it's more than that...

failure to prosecute them may very well be God's test for redemtion... But I'm not a Xtian; so what do I know...

[Ani Yun Wiya]

90. Indeed...

The sins HAVE been committed.
Without atonement, judgement is sure to come...

[Jcrowley]

40. I'm for impeachment

I'm for holding criminals accountable.

At this point a K&R is in order.

Wlecome to DU

:toast:

Grounds for Impeachment

By FRANCIS BOYLE

The longer we delay the necessary and principled impeachment process against Bush Jr. and his Neo-conservatives apparatchiks the greater will be the disaster for all the peoples of the world and even here in the United States. Witness the racist and class-based criminal mistreatment inflicted by the Bush Jr. administration upon the victims of Hurricane Katrina. President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff must all be impeached immediately for denying Equal Protection of the Laws to the Katrina Victims because they are African Americans and because they are Poor in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Their criminal negligence and resulting mass homicides constitute "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" within the meaning of Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution quoted above.

There is a recent precedent for introducing an Article of Impeachment against an incumbent American President for such Equal Protection violations amounting to massive discrimination on the grounds of Race and Class threatening the lives of American citizens that this author personally advised upon. On 14 January 1991, pursuant to the terms of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the United States Congress authorized President Bush Sr. to use military force against Iraq in order to expel Iraq from Kuwait in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 of 29 November 1990. In direct reaction thereto, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and I agreed to set up a National Campaign to Impeach President Bush Sr. if he went to war against Iraq, initially for the purpose of deterring him from doing so. It was agreed that I would write the Bill of Particulars against President Bush Sr. to serve as the basis for drafting the Articles of Impeachment comprising the Gonzalez Bill of Impeachment. We launched the Bush Sr. Impeachment Campaign on 15 January 1991.

Nevertheless the war started, and the very next day Congressman Gonzalez appeared on the floor of the House of Representatives to introduce his Bill of Impeachment against President Bush Sr. It was my great honor and privilege to serve as Counsel to Congressman Gonzalez on the subsequent course of this impeachment effort that he so courageously and tenaciously investigated and pursued in his capacity as Chairman of the House Banking Committee, a position he held until the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the 1994 congressional elections. In response, President Bush Sr. even unleashed the C.I.A. on this beloved congressman known affectionately to his friends as "Henry B."

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle09162005.html

[jarnocan]

42. petition - democrats.com IMPEACHMENT!!!! and more info.

petition with concise reasons; here: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88 and after you sign you will go to this page; some other good ideas here: http://democrats.com/cdic

Our plan is simple: we will form Impeachment Committees in all 435 Congressional Districts to persuade all of our Representatives to support impeachment. We're organizing from the bottom up in pure grassroots style. Remember, our Representatives are supposed to represent us!

[Kelly Rupert]

43. Three things.

1. Impeachment has nothing to do with the criminal justice system.
2. We'd never convict. We only have 51 Democrats, and Lieberman probably wouldn't vote along with it. Moreover, any legal basis for conviction is extremely shaky.
3. We won a very narrow majority. We have a one-seat majority in the Senate, and there were dozens of House races that were narrow decisions. Our mandate extends to this: do not do what the Republicans did. The American people have had enough of politics. They asked for good policy. If we provide them with nothing but an impeachment, they'll go right back to the Republicans in 2008.

[LearnedHand]

47. How is this NOT different from, "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

I agree with your passion, but do you see that your reasoning is right out of the Rove/Bush playbook?

[In Truth We Trust]

48. Kicked for truth! Rule of Law! Constitution! Justice! Impeach!!!!

[Quantess]

50. I see that the OP got tombstoned. (EOM)

[AntiFascist]

52. He/she must have disrupted elsewhere, I don't see any problems in this thread n/t

[Senator]

53. Seems Some Don't Like to Hear that Rationalizing Inaction Can Be a War Crime

But the bottom line is -- the truth of the OP is not really "up to us." The war crime tribunals themselves determine who acted with depravity and/or failed to act, with depraved indifference. And they don't give a detainee-cell's rat's ass about our "laundry list of issues" or our "chances in '08."

The USSC has ruled in the Hamdan case that Geneva Article 3 (which is also Federal Law: US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes) has always applied to the "enemy combatants." The fact that the regime launched a campaign to distract the Euphemedia and the public -- their tribunal-tinkering sideshow -- doesn't change the bottom line of the ruling:

There had already been 3 years of war crimes.

Nor does their attempt to retroactively immunize themselves by closing (if they really did) the secret foreign prisons, allowing Red Cross access, and passing the (meaningless-to-int'l-law) "War Criminals Protection Act" that Warner, McCain, and Graham refused to rubberstamp. As far as we know, the war crimes, both domestic and int'l, are still ongoing.

The DC Dems have to decide if Day One (the first minute of the "100 hours") of their new Congress will be a day of stopping torture or continuing torture. I don't see a mechanism to achieve the former option other than impeaching the torturers.

Which is why I keep repeating...

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

---

[grizmaster]

57. no really, I never heard the cattle cars go by

not the kind of excuse I want to be giving in ten years for why I did nothing.


Small technical point- The Geneva Convention is a treaty that we signed, and 2441 is the War Crimes Act which among other things makes violation of the Geneva Convention punishable in the American court system.

[RestoreGore]

54. Yes, and the blood on his hands will be on theirs

Impeachment is a moral imperative.

[grizmaster]

56. if ever there were high crimes and misdemeanors

it's the war crimes bush has committed in our names.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onenote]

69. silly post!

Starting with the incredibly silly first line: "Why is there a criminal justice system if not to convict the guilty?"

THere are many reasons for having a criminal justice system, and I would submit that anyone who characterizes its purpose as "to convict the guilty" has a seriously twisted view of it. One might just as easily (and arguably more correctly) state "WHy is there a criminal justice system if not acquit the innocent?" Or "Why is there a criminal justice system if not to determine guilt or innocence?" Or "Why is there a criminal justice system if not to determine the appropriate punishment for those found to have violated the law?" Or "Why is there a criminal justice system if not to give appropriate discretion to those who administer it?" and on and on.

Equally silly are the notions that impeachment is a criminal justice matter (its not) or that the public has spoken on the political issue of impeachment (they haven't even been asked).

[cali]

71. Beyond silly.

And what's really pathetic is the number of DUers that are mindlessly saying what a great post it is. The OP got virtually everything wrong.

[mondo joe]

60. Impeachment is NOT part of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

It's political, not criminal.

[truedelphi]

63. yes, impeachment is political - how can it not be

but what? We are SO very scared and afraid and shamed of being political that we will not impeach this man?
In my mind to not impeach is to condone and to ignore
And also to allow his regime of terror,shock and awe to continue


Under Bush we have the highest suicide rate experienced in the states Because the means to provide for one's self and family collapsed

Bush has brought about good things for only a handful of people in this country.

His impeachable offenses are so many that I would not even know where to begin

[mondo joe]

65. I'm addressing the OP which discussed this as a CRIMINAL matter.

But it's not.

It's political.

[onenote]

68. exactly right

[Xenotime]

62. Agree 100% Absolutely fantastic post.

[onenote]

67. "the people spoke on November 7" -- what exactly did they say?

Here's something that they didn't say: make impeachment the (or,at least, a) top priority for the country.

Why do I say this: because in 468 campaigns for House and Senate seats, the issue of impeachment was almost never part of a candidate's platform or otherwise put in issue and in those rare instances where the issue was part of the candidate's platform, that candidate almost always lost.

So exactly how do you reach the conclusion that "the people" said squat about impeachment on November 7.

What the people did say, imo, is that investigations and oversight, as an end unto themselves, should commence as soon as possible. Many Democrats waged campaigns that expressly made an issue of the failure of the repub-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight and investigation function. That is what needs to happen. By taking that step --- but only by taking that step --- can we reach the stage where public will demand impeachment.

[truedelphi]

78. It doesn't matter exactly what the people said on Nov 7th

In 1972 the people said "We want Richard Nixon."

After extensive hearings concerning WaterGate, the people changed their minds.

In fact even leading right wing Republicans like Goldwater changed their minds.

[onenote]

82. right: after extensive hearings

Precisely my point.

[truedelphi]

91. Sorry I got spacey and didn't read yr last paragraph n/t

[warrens]

73. You have legal proof of all those charges?

If they can be proven, he will be tried and convicted. If still in office, he will then be impeached. Unfortunately, under our system, you have to prove he committed a crime. I happen to agree he did, but a jury has to make that decision, not someone on the internet.

[earth mom]

93. If Congress does not Impeach, they are Accessories After the Fact. eom

[txindy]

94. Tombstoned. What a shock. Not.

So the drama. :eyes: