I don't want impeachment

[cally]

I've read all the arguments and the threads but I'm still not convinced. I know * committed crimes but I'm more concerned about this nation. I think we can survive a criminal as President but I don't think we can survive a democracy where all opposing parties impeach. I think we are stymied by Clinton's impeachment. It will set too much of a precedent if the Dems impeach in retribution.

I think we have to govern well. I think we can. I hope they will all be indicted but I hope impeachment is off the table.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. So is it that you don't want the guilty to be punished?

Or is it that you'd like to see future presidents getting away with crimes?

[bryant69]

4. Way to plug in the standard rhetoric

Nobody could accuse you of having a thought in your head. You saw a post opposing impeachment, and by golly, you plugged in the appropriate answer. Congratulations.

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I saw a post...

giving the same old bullshit.

Give me one good reason not to impeach and I'll give you a non-rhetorical answer.

[MrCoffee]

8. One Good Reason

There's no way in the world this Senate would convict. The bastards could confess to every Article of Impeachment you'd care to draw up, and this Senate would not convict.

Impeachment without conviction = exoneration.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Not buying it.

Why do you think Nixon resigned?

not impeaching = exoneration

[MrCoffee]

17. I think the Senate would have impeached in 1974

I don't think they would today. And there's no way in hell the Chimp is resigning the presidency.

[cool user name]

31. You don't let criminals go if by chance they will be acquitted ...

Why do the same with presidents?

They are not above the law. So what if the Senate doesn't convict? That's not a reason to not try, is it?

[MrCoffee]

37. I disagree with your analogy...

a criminal trial is generally not a politically charged event. impeachment is purely political. we all wish it were different, but if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

if i thought Senate Republicans would act like a criminal jury, then i'd be screaming loudest for impeachment. the reason i don't think the House should bring Articles is that i don't trust the Senate Republicans to act like a criminal jury, and i can't understand why people seem to think the Senate Republicans would be impartial in an impeachment trial.

do you honestly believe the Senate Republicans would look at evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors with anything but exoneration in mind? honestly?

[cool user name]

41. If there are things revealed that warrant removal ...

... then they would have no choice.

Impeachment is not just political. It's about justice. If Bush is found to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors (crimes that have killed almost three thousand of our young men and women), you can bet that the Republicans will have to convict if only to save their own asses come election time.

[MrCoffee]

45. i wish i had such a high opinion of Senate Repubs...

the same Senate Repubs who passed the MCA, the same Senate Repubs that put Scalito and Roberts on the Court, the same Senate Repubs who break their backs jumping every time the WH tells them too...

yeah, that bunch of criminals has integrity.

[cool user name]

64. Has nothing to do with integrity ...

And if you remember, some of the Democrats are just as responsible for MCA and the judicial nominations as the Republicans.

Senate Republicans would have no choice but to convict if only to save their own hides come election time. I know you didn't miss that point I made in my previous post even if you attempted to ignore it completely.

[Old and In the Way]

51. Why is that a good reason?

If investigations and evidence warrant a bill of impeachment, who cares if it gets voted down? The Senators can answer to their constituents and explain why they chose to give the crooks a pass.

Not having an impeachment process, if the evidence and investigations warrant it, means we are exonerating them of their crimes. We are also telling future Presidents that you can do all of the things this pResident has done and it's OK.

If Bush had had sex with a consenting adult, I'd argue against impeachment...starting a war based on lies, ignoring the warnings of pending attack that lead to 9/11, and failing to mount an adequate federal response immediately after the Katrina hurricane fit my definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[bryant69]

10. WE HAVE NO FUCKING CHANCE OF GETTING BUSH

REMOVED FROM POWER!

Sorry to yell but come on, everybody either realizes that as things stand now, actually removing bush from power is a pipe dream, or they are deluded nitwits. So those of you pushing for impeachment now are pushing for a symbolic gesture of toughness to make us look like bad asses or some bullshit reason. It can't be justice beacuse the way things are set up now, there's no justice at the end of an impeachment.

So we investigate and hope that we can build a case. We turn turn the screws a little. We shake the bush tree to see what falls out - and if something falls out big enough, then we impeach.

Bryant

[JuniperLea]

20. Bullshit.

They can't hide it all forever. During the course of setting things right you KNOW Congress will stumble upon a whole lot more than we know at the moment.

Clinton was impeached for lying; Bush has lied and lied and lied... tell me he hasn't. And tell me he hasn't done far worse.

[bryant69]

24. Didn't I just say we should investigate?

Yes I did. I remember it like it was a few minutes ago.

What is being calledfor is an immediate impeachment, not an impeachment after serious investigation.

[JuniperLea]

55. You can't have one without the other

You speak as though you want impeachment off the table... you argue points of the same with people... can we make up our mind?

You can't impeach w/o an investigation. You'd have to be sealed in a cave since birth to not see there is far more than the tip of the iceberg we are aware of for certain.

So, you're saying if there is an investigation and irrefutable impeachable evidence is found, you are for impeachment?

[bryant69]

57. Yes -

and your next line is "So you don't see irrefutable evidence already?"

Bryant

[JuniperLea]

60. Nope, not at all

My line is as it has always been... when during the course of setting things right, Congress will without question find irrefutable evidence that the monster in the White House should be impeached. At that point in time, we must impeach.

We see and we know many things. We have collectively been validated by recent events. We have watched the writing on the wall become validated. We will see the process again with impeachment.

[cool user name]

34. Who said anything about impeachment without investigations?

It's self-evident that one would investigate first, no?

You seem to be no impeachment at all.

Impeachment and investigation are two sides of the same coin, no?

[bryant69]

50. Sorry for making you puke

But the debate is whether or not to begin impeachment hearings immediately or wait to investigate first. Obviously the hearings themselves would invovle some investigation.

Bryant

[cool user name]

43. This is the sort of defeatest attitude that makes me puke ...

How I yearn for an actual opposition party.

[ashling]

28. Impeaching (and convicting) Bush gives us President Cheney

there's no way their going to be impeached together. He appoints someone to act as VP (someone like McCain) and the game just goes on and on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. That's like saying if you convict Bonnie you can't convict Clyde.

Furhermore, any VP needs to be approved by congress, so no, the "game" doesn't keep going on and on.

[cool user name]

44. Great analogy

[ashling]

47. As I said in another thread,

their are too many variables with the Republican controlled Senate. Oh yeah, we get to manage the agenda and the committees, but with that Rebublican Lieberman looking over our shoulder.

[JuniperLea]

61. No, it implicates Cheney

He will go down at the same time.

[cally]

12. That's a dumb argument

I posted that I'm all for criminal repercussions. What I'm not for is political ones. I think we need to get beyond political power and when it changes, the opposing party faces the repercussions. I'm all for sending it to second, impartial parties. Not the Ken Starr types, but honest third brokers. Let's create an environment of good government.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Dumb argument?

From a person saying we shouldn't impeach Bush because we shouldn't have all the opposition parties impeaching the president? Good lord.

You want criminal repercussions but not political? Impeachment is the criminal repercussion for Bush's crimes. Not impeaching would be politics.

[Tom Joad]

2. Bush should be sent to the Hague for war crimes.

Reparations for the illegal, immoral, US aggression against the Iraqi people must not stand.

[Vincardog]

3. If lying us into war is not enough. Looting the treasury is.

Wait until the investigations prove they MIHOP and then decide. I believe we can not afford to let these war criminals get away with it. Just because they used impeachment for political purposes does not mean that we should not use it for the purpose it was intended.

[beth9999]

6. Personally, I'm against impeaching Bush/Cheney too...

... I think we should be going after the repug SC justices. Bush/Cheney will be gone in two years anyway (and we can always indict them afterwards too). The repug judges, however, will be with us for life if we don't get rid of them.

Focus on the judges first. After that, if there's time, we can impeach Bush/Cheney. And we can always indict them criminally after 2008 too.

[cali]

14. There isn't a case for impeachment

for any of the SC justices. More silliness.

[beth9999]

27. Sure there is a case....

... all of them (the ones I mentioned) want to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is the law of the land. Last time I checked, acting contrary to the law of the land was illegal.

In any event, the repugs showed us in 1998 that you don't actually need a real reason to impeach anyway.

Throw the bums out.

[cali]

40. That is absolutely ridiculous

Do you have any clue as to how the SC works?

[newyawker99]

49. Hi beth9999!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[cally]

52. Thank you for being here

And welcome to DU.

Now go back to the argument. I suspect we'll agree occasionally and disagree more often. I look forward to the discussion.

[Gregorian]

7. Maybe this thought will clarify things.

Impeachment would not be about Bush, but about the long accumulated history of people and crimes that gave us Bush.

Bush is nobody. But the Bush crime family is everything. This is a history that may even include the assassination of JFK.

This is like being in a knife fight. The attacker has just dropped his knife for the first time in the fight. And what are we going to do about it? Sit there? No, we're going to kick him in the balls as hard as humanly possible.

[JuniperLea]

15. I'm with you!

Kick 'em in the balls.

If in the course of setting things right Congress stumbles upon irrefutable impeachable evidence (and oh, you KNOW they will), then it is our duty to impeach. Period. If we do not, we only embolden the evil doers and they will take that as a free pass, mark my words!

[cally]

25. But the argument is too much about all the other issues

If we could focus on your issues then I would support impeachment.

[Gregorian]

29. Here's something less vague. I was being really general.

Bush (and Cheney) has already committed impeachable crimes.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10

[cally]

35. I KNOW THAT

What does that mean for our democracy if every opposing party impeaches? I support impeachment of Bush for his crimes but I also don't think it serves our democracy. We have to have a stable government. The Dems have to show how to govern. I'm all for retribution but I don't believe we'll (democracy will ) win this way.

[cool user name]

36. Here! Here!

Kick 'em in the balls!

[Tunkamerica]

11. I would hope you'd wait for the investigations to be done

... before you throw out the idea of punishment. You assume you know what Bush has done and based on that you think that political highground is more important. What if it comes out he's done much more heinous things than we thought? "We would impeach but we already said we wouldn't". I'd wait for the proof before I decided on the outcome.

[cally]

39. Yes, you are corect

I just don't believe we'll find out in a timely fashion. I 'know' that I will find out horrible crimes that * committed.

[Warpy]

13. It would hardly be in retribution since Stupid has committed

high crimes that are approaching treason.

However, it's premature at this point. I honestly think there need to be investigations on top of investigations--honest ones by a Democratic House. Once the true scope of the criminality of this bunch is exposed, they may not be able to avoid impeachment.

There are three conditions, though, that would call for immediate impeachment: first (and likeliest), Stupid vetoes every single piece of legislation that crosses his desk, including the budget, because it came from Democrats, thus shutting the government down completely. Second, declaring another "preemptive" war. Third, going completely batshit and trying to institute martial law, dissolving Congress, and turning this into an official police state.

The next couple of years aren't going to be comfortable ones for anybody, impeachment or not. Personally, I'd prefer investigations and indictments picking off one of these bastards at a time, leaving Stupid isolated, frustrated and neutered. Waxman and Conyers seem primed to do just that.

[RedCloud]

18. When they let Bush I and Ray Gun walk free

They set the stage for Bush II.
Gee, no October surprise investigation?
Demagogic invasion of Grenada to deflect attention away from bombing in Lebanon two days earlier killing several hundred marines...
Space shuttle challenger overhead and coordinating surveillance on KAL 007's last few hours...

Hell Prescott Bush and the Nazis at Auschwitz.

Let's keep forgiving.

Checked that assassination scoreboard last half century? One party seems to be coming out scot free... Why is that?

Conservatives need to have their teeth kicked in. Family value liars! Who can afford a new home with honest pay these days? Manipulated voters into single minded non germaine issues.

I say no mercy until they realize they can't behave like scum anymore.

[Nite Owl]

19. It has nothing at all to do with

retribution for Clinton. It has to do with accountability, with truth. If we can't face that as a nation what are we really?

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Then what is the purpose of impeachment?

My understanding from civics class is that impeachment is a stick to keep the Executive and Judiciary branches from committing abuses of power and other crimes while in office. The Founders felt it important enough that they included it in the Constitution. And I assert that, in Bush's case, it is not "retribution" so much as long overdue justice.

If partisanship has protected Bush from impeachment despite his blatant crimes, why should partisanship continue to protect him when the balance of power changes? What, in the end, is the purpose of impeachment?

[cally]

48. We've had two impeachments

Neither has been about constitutional crisis. I'm all for holding Bush to criminal liability, but not for impeachment. Show me how this will help the nation. It's not about what's best for the world but what should the activists want.

[WI_DEM]

22. I admire you for publicly taking a stand many on DU would oppose

[Montauk6]

23. "I know * committed crimes--"OK STOP THERE. STOP, STop, stop..

relax...

OK, we have on the table compelling reasons to believe that a war was initiated based on possible fraud. There's no "well let's weigh all sides" about it. This thing needs to be investigated, prosecuted, etc etc. Democracy will survive this, it's the looking the other way that may jeopardize it.

I don't want to speak for anyone on this board, so I'll go on my perspective alone (and anyone else sharing it, fine). I am not stymied by the Clinton impeachment, I'm offended that there was an attempt to sabotage the presidency with this frivolous nonsense. The whole Starr Chamber fiasco which spent a lot of your and my tax dollars to come up with a BJ. That was the big picture outrage, IIRC.

We can't sit around worrying because of the timing that we MAY LOOK like we're striking back. No, this is what impeachment powers were made for, and they have to be used, no matter whom it inconveniences.

I understand your apprehensions but I can't go along with letting these crooks slide. Furthermore, I truly DON'T think we can "survive a criminal as President," because if they commit a crime of this magnitude and aren't bounced from office along with being arrested, then they can virtually do anything.

[Old and In the Way]

54. I think a case could be made that the Clinton impeachment was pre-meditated.

To inoculate the next President against the act. Bush has run this government like he is unaccountable. It would not surprise me in the least that a side benefit to impeaching Clinton helped to enable the Republican Syndicate to steal the 2000 election. They were planning their PNAC invasion well before Bush took office, I have no reason not to believe that the Clinton impeachment charade was so onerous that the intent was to make future Presidents unimpeachable.

[Gregorian]

26. According to this DU'er, investigations are not needed.

It's already over...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10

[AndyTiedye]

30. It Won't Be Just the Dems Impeaching When Impeachment Comes

We impeach when we have the votes in the Senate to convict (if they don't resign first).
Many of those votes will be from Republicans.

Just like it was with Nixon.

[MrCoffee]

42. When are Senate Republicans ever going to vote to impeach?

Why do we suddenly trust the repukes in the Senate to vote to impeach? The Chimpco bastards could confess to any Articles of Impeachment you could draw up, and hand over the smoking guns, and i still wouldn't trust the Senate Pukes to vote to impeach.

[Independent_Liberal]

59. Quit assuming every Republican is going to move to save W's butt! You don't KNOW that!

Gee whiz! You naysayers act like you know everything for certain when you don't. Did you ever think for a minute that maybe you could be completely wrong?

Read what Bob from the Impeach for Change blog has to say:

http://www.democrats.com/impeach-for-global-warming-report

<snip>

One of the most frequent attacks on impeachment is the claim that all Republicans will oppose it.

I have never bought that attack because any half-way thorough impeachment effort will discover numerous outright crimes by Bush and Cheney. How will Republicans be able to justify criminal activity in the Oval Office - especially after they impeached Bill Clinton for commiting a crime of no importance - simply lying about an affair?

As Congressional hearings exposed the depth of Watergate crimes in 1974, nearly every Republican turned against Nixon. Why would Republicans act differently in 2007 - especially since the 2006 election put them on the verge of political extinction?

Of course I always assumed the impeachable offenses Congressional Democrats would pursue would be issues that have generated outrage primarily from Democrats, rather than Republicans - issues like the Iraq War lies, torture, the Unitary Executive Theory, etc., which are detailed in our petition.

But I just came across a White House crime that has outraged a top Republican - in fact the frontrunner in the 2008 GOP campaign. Who? John McCain, of course.

<snip>

McCain: Bush Admin Breaks Laws to Hide Global Warming Data
By Justin Rood - November 17, 2006, 1:35 PM

"They're simply not complying with the law. It's incredible."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised eyebrows yesterday with that comment regarding the Bush administration, made before a crowd of several hundred at a Washington, D.C. event.

At issue is a report on climate change that Congress requires every four years. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is responsible for producing the document, last filed a report in 2000. A new report -- the first to be filed by the Bush administration -- was due in November 2004, but to date the agency has not done so.

"When you get to that degree of obfuscation, then you get a little depressed," McCain said, according to several attendees. McCain's comments were also reported by the trade daily Environment and Energy.

McCain has rapped the administration before over the long-overdue report.

At a June 2005 hearing, McCain grilled Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Bush's appointed chief of NOAA, over a GAO report chastising his agency for failing to deliver their findings on time.

"Basically, they say you're not complying with the law," McCain told Lautenbacher.

"Yes, sir," the NOAA chief responded.

"Are you complying with the law?" McCain asked.

"I believe that we are complying with the law, yes sir," Lautenbacher replied.

"You know," McCain said a few moments later, "you are really one of the more astonishing witnesses that I have -- in the 19 years I've been a member of this Committee."

[AndyTiedye]

67. When Presented With Evidence of LIHOP, or Worse

[wryter2000]

33. I want impeachment at the proper time

Let's have investigations first so we can prove the case. I don't want an empty gesture that can be attributed to "hatred of Bush" or "partisan politics."

I want impeachment when everyone in the country is calling for it and it stands a chance. Anyone who's talking publicly of impeaching before the evidence comes out hurts the chances of impeachment and removal from office at the appropriate time.

Anyone who thinks the dems can't publicly change their minds about impeachment after the evidence comes out is badly underestimating them.

[Minnesota_Lib]

38. I am...but only after open investigations and hearings are held so the public...

...is fully aware of what crimes were committed and what is at sake if those crimes go unanswered. With the facts and overwhelming public support aligned against the pResident and his V.P., it would be hard for any but the most corrupt Republican congressmen with 100% safe seats to oppose impeachment. The articles of impeachment must be drawn up as a bipartisan effort to remove any doubt that it is nothing more than a political hatchet job a la the Clinton fiasco. Of course, the RW hardliners will ignore all evidence and claim foul no matter what but they will be marginalized by the 65-75% who are informed.

I'd love to see both Bush and Cheney gone in January, but that just ain't going to happen no matter how much gashing of teeth goes on here. It is a matter of political reality that if we seriously want to win the White House in '08, any impeachment--especially one that includes both executives, has to be completely above reproach in the eyes of the public otherwise it'll look like some kind of third-world coup.

Just my 2 cents

<Dons flame-retardant boxers>

[Vidar]

46. We've already been sold out. It no longer matters what we want.

[xchrom]

53. then is there any lesson to over reaching, and

telling lies to go to war?

i might be able to see some reason to all of this -- but more than anything else -- there is a bitter lesson to be learned by those who have committed crimes.

if bushco is more or less let go -- save some humiliation -- there is a host of supporting characters -- the power behind the throne -- will remain unscathed and looking for the next opportunity to do the same.

a fatal error if there ever was one.

leave this host of characters unshackled -- so to speak -- then you leave them to do you and if it matters to you -- your country -- damage again.

[Gregorian]

56. We owe it to The Constitution.

We owe it to the long term of America. For the future generations who will thank us for upholding that document. The Constitution. The very thing that makes America America.

And let me also say this- Impeachment was intended for serious high crimes and misdemeanors. That previous act that a Republican dominated Congress perpetrated upon Clinton, was not an impeachment. It was a laughingstock. A way of getting their foot in the door, in order to do their deeds.

And let me also say this- Those who do not want impeachment will be disturbed if we impeach. And those who want impeachment will be disturbed if we don't. That might be more important than any of the rest. I matters not what the country thinks.

[cally]

65. It's too easy...we have bigger problems

I so wish I thought impeachment would be the answer and I could go back to la la land. It's not that easy. It will take too much political capital to focus on impeachment. We need to focus on bigger problems.
s

[BlueStater]

58. I can't believe the number of people who are opposed to impeachment

For years, we've complained about how this jerkoff is a war criminal, how he has violated our Constitution, etc. and there wasn't a damn thing we could do about it. Now, we finally have the chance to hold this moron accountable and we're just going to let it slip between our fingers?

Geez.

[cally]

62. I look at it differently

I'm all about good government. I think impeachment will hinder world stability. You and I can play online about world leaders criminal actions, and yes I agree with most of the them. I'm focused on world stabilitiy and global warming. I think we all need to get past the criminality and focus on climate change.

W

[wildbilln864]

63. Are you fucking kidding me?

Those bastards, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, and many others are all guilty of mass murder!
Impeach, procecute and imprison them!

[whistle]

66. Here, here, I agree completely....and the sooner action is taken the quicker

....the country gets back on track. No patient has ever survived being nice and accepting to the cancer which is killing them.

[haydukelives]

68. I do want impeachment

Lock him up
And then throw away the key

[MoseyWalker]

69. Rule of law

and high crimes and misdemeanors.


that's what counts. Not how anyone feels one way or the other.

Were these high crimes and misdemeanors committed?

If yes......impeach. the rule of law was broken

if no............you're not paying attention

[Imagevision]

70. I want Impeachment, I want it to be part of his legacy

[pat_k]

71. I don't want. . .

If you have not read http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-1595581405-0">The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism by John Nichols, you have not read "all the arguments." See also, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0612.nichols.html">Be bipartisan: Impeach Bush by John Nichols (Washington Monthly).

The case for impeachment is irrefutable (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">this journal entry conveys it most effectively).

Members of Congress are sworn to defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against threats from within. Bush and Cheney have usurped our will and violated our laws in plain sight. They are an intolerable threat.

Members of Congress have a choice: Duty or Complicity. "Appearances" are irrelevant. (But, for those who think fears of being falsely accused of mounting a "partisan coup" can excuse dereliction of duty, that accusation http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12"> is easy to turn around.)

My message to Members of Congress (and indirectly to those who oppose impeachment):

I don't want my new minimum wage when the massive power of the American Presidency is in the hands of War Criminals.

I don't want affordable health care if "rule by signing statement" and Bush as unitary authoritarian executive is left unchallenged.

I don't care about breaking the link between law makers and lobbyists while Bush and Cheney wield ever more unconstitutional power to force the wishes of their tiny faction on the rest of us.

I don't care about enacting the 911 commission recommendations until habeas corpus is restored and the men behind nullifying it are removed from power.

As long as you allow Bush and Cheney to abuse their power by picking and choosing the laws they execute or enforce, you will not get my support to pass more laws for them to ignore.

The War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 was a landmark achievement in White House conspiracy to violate our Constitutional rights and commit international crime. Lifting the restrictions on stem cell research imposed by a small faction can wait until that act is struck down and Bush and Cheney are removed from office for leading the conspiracy.

With threats of "mushroom clouds over our cities," Bush and Cheney terrorized the American people into submitting to their criminal war of aggression. I cannot imagine how you think the United States can help to end the conflict and chaos that is spreading inhumanity and destroying lives in the Middle East if you leave governing power in the hands of the men who are responsible for the horrors.

I am one of the majority of sensible Americans http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">who want SENSIBLE priorities. There is nothing partisan or radical about inaugurating a President and Vice President committed to fulfilling their oath to execute our laws BEFORE we worry about passing more laws.

BTW -- you don't even have to WAIT to engage the stakeholders in finding solutions to the critical problems we face as a nation. You and your staffers can fight to remove Bush and Cheney from power and design and pass legislation AT THE SAME TIME. Multitasking is the name of the game. Just make sure Impeachment never takes a back seat to those other tasks.