"Organic Impeachment"

[yodermon]

This absolutely sums it up. Impeachment-talk before investigations is very much cart-before-the-horse.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/11/28/the-question/#comments

<snip>
One- should some dems attempt a doomed and token effort to raise the issue of impeachment knowing full well that it’s goin no where?

Two-should dems begin investigations into areas that could very well lead to the discovery of improprieties that even goopers would have to regard as impeachable.

No. And Yes. In that order.

Impeachment is first and foremost a political act, and the available evidence (Nixon and Clinton) shows that the electorate views it so. Starting in office saying they’re going to impeach the Two Stooges is repeating the Gingrich mistake.

If, on the other hand, carefully conducted oversight hearing bring forward compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of BushCo, then impeachment grows organically from the findings. The analogy then becomes Nixon rather than Clinton. And BushCo will be gone.

[aquart]

1. Yup.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Well put.

I've seen saying the same for months. I believe impeachment is an imperative, but it must grow from the investigations. After all, it wasn't the Dems that took down Nixon - it was his own party turning on him that forced his resignation.

[longship]

3. Nixon is the exemplar.

Those who want the House to start impeachment proceedings immediately in January very much need to study Watergate very carefully. It shows exactly how things have to be done.

It doesn't really matter what a group of admittedly partisans, like many of us more progressive DUers, think. There is no general consensus for impeachment at this time. All the polls, even those which show a majority supporting impeachment, show clearly that this support is based on the premise that "impeachable offenses have occurred".

The solution is simple but will be a very steep climb. We have to convince the people of the United States that the crimes of the Dubya administration rises to the level that the country should take the time and effort to go through the process of impeaching. From the Watergate example, there is insufficient time to accomplish this. That is not to say that impeachment in this case is not possible. However, if it is to be done, things have to move quickly.

Most importantly, you are correct that impeachment is a political process. Even those who would deny this would have to admit that there will be very heavy political penalties if Democrats start down that road and fail.

What do the people require? Simple. They require two things. One, they need to know that impeachable offenses have occurred. Two, they need to see that a deliberative process, untainted by the types of things which happened in 1998, has been followed.

Barbara Jordan spoke eloquently to these very requirements on July 25, 1974:

Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

Barbara Jordan made those statements two whole years after the Watergate break-in and 18 whole months after Congress took up their charge to investigate the Nixon presidency.

If this country is to impeach ChimpCo, there are no shortcuts. Those of us who have a passion to impeach need to realize the extent to which reason must guide the process. That's the only way that the people's collective passion will join ours.

[pat_k]

5. "Cover up" was the hallmark of Watergate. Bushcheney's crimes committed in plain sight. . .

. . .I know you and I have been round and round about this, but everything we need to make an irrefutable case for impeachment is http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">public record. There is no "cover up" to detangle and expose.

At this point, failure to accuse is a statement that they DO NOT have a case. Rather than strengthening the case, it just injects unnecessary doubt in the public mind and feeds the opposition ("A lot of people who hate Bush may be calling for impeachment, but if they had a case they would have introduced articles. They've got nothing. They are just fishing.")

Also, don't forget, the Watergate hearings were Impeachment Hearings -- pretty much the opposite of keeping impeachment off the table while open-ended fact finding hearings organically lead to impeachment.

And finally, open-ended hearings held by this or that committee may get on C-SPAN, but will get little coverage elsewhere. Targeted Impeachment Hearings to review and nail down draft articles would get coverage -- big time. If the purpose of the hearings is to bring the public on board, they must be Impeachment Hearings. Anything else won't garner the media attention necessary to reach the viewing public.

[longship]

10. Some corrections and a comment.

Impeachment proceedings against Nixon began in January, 1974. The House agreed to convene the Judiciary committee for the purposes of investigating whether articles of impeachment should be drawn up on Feb 6, 1974. That was a whole year after the Senate convened the Senate Watergate hearings. Also in that interim was the Special Prosecutor, a grand jury (or two), and other official investigations into the activities of the White House.

The House of Representatives acted only after Nixon plunged the country into a Constitutional crisis on October 20, 1973. On that date, 50,000 telegrams hit Congress, most of which demanded impeachment. That's the kind of support from the people would be required.

The Judiciary committee deliberated through the year and into the summer finally drawing up and voting on articles in late July and early August. At the time Barbara Jordan made her speech, there had been two years of investigations and Nixon would be gone from office in less than two weeks.

The situation today is completely contrary to that. We've had zero investigations and zero hearings. The only special prosecutor is working on an entirely different, and peripheral, case which seems to be bogged down waiting for trial.

BTW, I much appreciate your informative posts. These kind of dialogs are always useful to me. I hope you don't think that I'm against impeachment, because I'm not. I just want it to work. I also want the Dems to take the White House in 2008. If we jump the gun on this thing, I think we lose both.


But understand, pat_k, the issue is not whether we should impeach but how. We can either follow a deliberative process and do it right, or we might as well jump into the pit with the Repukes.

I still think it happens. Bush will be gone by 2008. He's done too much damage already for that not to happen. When investigations begin later this winter there is going to be action because the people are going to be screaming for it.

[cascadiance]

14. Exactly right... We need to make sure we have a good case!

If we already had a good case and had *everything* already available for us to impeach with, wouldn't that minimize some of the arguments we've been making of how so much has been covered up from us up until this point (aka State Secrets privilege restrictions, lack of congressional hearings/investigations, etc.)? If we find stuff now that we put Dems in session, not only does it add more to our case to get Bushco out, but it also increases our case to increase our majority in Congress, since finding more damning info on Bushco will add more evidence of an ineffective and perhaps complicit Republican controlled congress. A quick jump to impeachment hearings will not make the most of that, and runs a greater risk of being shut down or not realizing full conviction. I WANT conviction, not just a slap on Bushco's wrists!

The key is how quickly we can proceed and finish this investigation. I DO want heavy action there!

[longship]

15. Good!

And while Congress is doing their investigation thing, we need to keep beating the impeachment drum. But not to actually impeach Chimp, cuz that probably won't happen. But if we turn things against him he may go like Nixon.

Bush's support is very, very soft right now. What will it take to turn the corner? I say when investigations start in earnest, revelations will take their inevitable toll. Chimp will be toast before he knows it. How soon before the Repukes throw him over? This could be a big mess, and with Pelosi in line, could trigger a Constitutional crisis. But just maybe it will be perceived as a Repuke crisis and not on the Dems. That can only happen if we let things happen naturally and not push the impeachment issue until we get overwhelming support.

With the soft Bush support, that may very well happen sooner than we could imagine.

I like your thinking, my friend.

[ginnyinWI]

21. differences between then and now--

1. Is the media is much more controlled now in favor of the administration. Will they report what's going on fully enough for the American people to get it?

2. And are the people inclined to accept yet another thing to upset the status quo in this country, or are they insecure enough now, with constant talk of war and terrorists to want to try to push the idea away and deny the need to impeach?

[grizmaster]

22. a hell of a lot more than 50,000 telegrams

have already been sent to Congress demanding impeachment.

And there hasn't been zero investigations. The only thing lacking was subpoena power to get some of the backing documentation. Conyers report alone contains a landslide of info that backs impeachment.

[pat_k]

4. The case is complete. Calls for investigation nullify that case, effectively exonerating.

For your consideration:

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


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.


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.


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


5. Everything necessary to make an irrefutable case for impeachment is available in the public record as described in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">this journal entry. Any one of the crimes described is all that is needed to conclude that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution.


6. 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.


7. Their oath is an individual oath. Their duty an individual duty. The failure of their colleagues to act cannot excuse their own failure.

Also, from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2811631&mesg_id=2811631">"If the impeachment provision in the Constitution. . ." --Barbara Jordan

((((excerpts from Barbaara Jordan's 1974 address to the Judiciary Committee))))

. . . The executive branch under the rule of Bush and Cheney has "swollen with power and grown tyrannical." Congress has been derelict in their duty to stand against the subversion.

Unlike the Nixon administration's actions in Watergate, where "cover up" was the hallmark, Bush and Cheney are usurping our will and violating our Constitution in plain sight. Phrases like "encroachments of the executive" or "betray their public trust" fail to capture their blatant and aggressive appropriation of Unconstitutional power.

On the question of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, we are long past the need for investigation.

We have our evidence. The case for impeachment is http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">complete.

It is time to formally accuse (introduce articles). Calls for hearings to present the evidence are appropriate. Calls for more evidence and investigation are nothing but an attempt to escape the unavoidable truth.

Refusing to accuse at this point says one thing: "What we know now is not enough to impeach."

Refusing to accuse effectively nullifies the powerful and simple case we have.

Refusing to accuse is tantamount to exoneration.

If exoneration is their intention, Members of the House should do it honestly and tell us why the nation should not hold Bush and Cheney to account for

• War crimes committed at Gitmo under color of law at the direction of the White House. (At least three years of operations that our own Supreme Court declared to be violations of Geneva and our own law)
• Terrorizing us with threats of "Mushroom Clouds over our cities in 45 minutes." (Mo 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)
• Their criminal domestic surveillance program, for which they make the laughable and Unconstitutional claim that unitary authoritarian power gives them a "get out of jail free" card.

[JCMach1]

6. There is also the TIME issue. While he can do a lot of damage in 2 years

How long will the investigations and possible trial take?

[pat_k]

8. Could unfold faster than most would imagine. .

Bush and Cheney could be out by President's Day.

The Watergate hearings took seven weeks. Unlike Nixon's admin, where "cover up" was the hallmark, Bush and Cheney have usurped our will and violated our laws in plain sight. There is no cover up to expose and detangle.

Everything necessary to make an irrefutable case for impeachment is in the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2759379">public record. (Even if there weren't so many other crimes to choose from, the world-wide hatred of Bush's USA alone endangers us; removing them to redeem the nation and make it possible to rebuild burnt bridges is a defensive act.)

Members of Congress could introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney when they convene on January 4, 2007. Committee hearings to review and make the case could be underway in days. Since there is no need for investigation, the hearings could move very quickly. (Note: Calling for open-ended investigation is a declaration that we don't have a case -- a lie that undercuts the powerful case we have.)

Once they get serious and declare their intent to impeach and remove, there is no set sequence of events. Between the threat of impeachment and removal from office (via resignation or impeachment) the possibilities are infinite. It could take weeks. It could take months. They could be out by President's Day (Feb 19, 2007).

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.

Once the leadership makes specific accusations and declares their intent to impeach, we'll soon find out how many Republicans are actually willing to defend the indefensible. It may be fewer than we can imagine. For example, Bush's abuse of signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment (the overwhelming will of the people) in order to keep torture "on the table" is not something that many would happily defend. 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).

Republicans will have a choice. Defend the indefensible or "get it over with" ASAP by pressuring Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">exit strategy." Given the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush-Cheney White House, Republicans may be more than happy to be rid of them.

Whatever the expected outcome, to fail to accuse is tantamount to exoneration. For Members of the House, the choice is clear: Duty or Complicity. They must just do their duty, one step at a time. Their their decision to bring charges cannot be based on how long they think it will take to vote out articles or on what they believe will happen in the Senate. As in Watergate, voting articles out of committee may be enough to motivate Bush and Cheney to resign.

[eridani]

7. Impeachment matters much less than--

--building a case for war crimes that will actually put them in jail after they leave office.

[pat_k]

9. Independent aspects. {Impeachment }= {Defense of Constitution}

{Criminal Prosecution} = {Retribution} (i.e., judgment, punishment, balancing the scales of justice, redeeming ourselves in the eyes of the world. . .)

Congress is sworn to defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to fulfill their oath when the threat comes from within the halls of power. Impeachment is the ONLY way to reassert the terms of our common contract: the Constitution of the United States of America.

For members of Congress, the duty to rescue the Constitution by removing the threat ASAP trumps all else. They have everything they need to make an irrefutable case for impeachment. There is no legitimate excuse for delay.

Congressional investigations to uncover co-conspirators and the full extent of the damage Bush, Cheney, and Co. have done can move forward in parallel with impeachment or can follow it, but such investigations cannot get mixed up with impeachment.

Criminal prosecution is for the courts -- both here and at the Hague, not Congress.

[omega minimo]

11. The horse is already before the cart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2815336

[pat_k]

16. Hear! Hear! The sure way to keep Bushcheney in the WH is to rationalize. . .

. . .keeping quiet about Bush and Cheney's crimes and keeping impeachment off the table.

Bush and Cheney have usurped our will and violated our laws in plain sight. There is no legitimate reason for refusing to accuse.

But with impeachment is off the table, they certainly can't speak the truth and accuse. If they did, there would be no way around having to impeach (Once the truth slips out, it's impeach or sound like morally confused morons -- e.g., "Bush and Cheney are War Criminals. But hey, don't worry, we aren't going to DO anything about it!").

It reminds me of Bush v. Gore -- a conclusion in search of a rationale.

They are afraid of moving to impeach, so speaking the truth and publicly accusing Bush and Cheney of their crimes is off the table (just as anything that could result in a Gore win was 'off the table" for the felonious five).

In this thread, it is magical "organic impeachment" thinking provides the rationale for keeping quite. We see other rationales in other threads (e.g., Have to keep quiet until we know the Senate will convict -- never mind that we can never "know". . .). When one crumbles, up pops another.

The various rationalizations for silence have no more legitimacy than the rationalizations for stopping the recount in Bush v. Gore. That's how it goes when you start with a conclusion.

Open-ended fishing expeditions are not going to magically "make the case" for them. Sooner or later, they will actually have to DO SOMETHING -- to speak the truth and accuse. It is time for Members of Congress to muster up the courage and just do it. There is no legitimate reason for delay.

And, BTW, moral imperatives aside, a passive "wait and see" approach is political insanity. What could be less engaging and inspiring than "Hey everybody, let's. . .wait and see"?

Does anybody actually feel good about the "let's play nice with the fascists" pablum we are hearing out of Speaker-elect Pelosi? (Pablum that is supposedly a cover for a secret "impeach Bush" agenda -- an agenda so secret we can see no evidence of it.)

As far as I can tell, even the people who are defending their "off the table" pledge feel icky about it. If we feel a bit dirty about the manipulative appeasement our so-called leaders are engaged in how can we expect it to inspire others?

Just came the following article -- looks like it hits the nail on the head:

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/200611281333124

[omega minimo]

27. thanks pat_k, for educating.

:kick:

[calimary]

12. Allow me the pleasure of sending this to the Greatest Page!

:thumbsup:

BTW, by the time we get to this point, with the way george is digging his heels in despite the better advice and cautions and pleadings of almost EVERYBODY on the planet, most of America - AND most of his own party - will welcome this end-of-nightmare scenario. They'll all embrace it eagerly by then. Hey, it took some time but we reached critical mass once, already. It can certainly happen again!

[Stephanie]

13. this is what I've been saying.

let the investigations begin. impeachment will become UNAVOIDABLE. the crimes are too great once they are legally enumerated.

[yowzayowzayowza]

17. Implicit Impeachment Via Oversight

Force 'em to paint their purposes into ever smaller corners. A double fistful of Senators will answer for their obstruction of reasonable policy in 08. I kinda like the rotting albatross 'round their necks in the mean time.

[cassiepriam]

18. Bingo. What we know is bad enough. What we find out will seal the deal,

Investigate throughly. Then the public will demand impeachment.

[ms liberty]

19. Precisely...

The hearings will provide the evidence, and put it into the official record. The evidence, admitted into the official record, will then lead to the only possible conclusion, which is the necessity of impeachment.

[H2O Man]

20. No one has

advocated impeachment without investigations. The continued attempts to pretend otherwise are curious, indeed.

[omega minimo]

26. Wasted time, nonsensical hair-splitting, irrelevant red herrings..............

who would do that?

people who don't understand the process?
people who are afraid?
what are they afraid of?

[petgoat]

28. Those raising all the fuss about the need for investigations

are raising a hue and cry about an obvious procedural point--
But wait! We can't even talk about going dancing until
your shoes are tied!

What bothers me most about it is their implication that we don't have
the evidence now. All that has to happen is that the evidence in plain
sight is packaged in the official record.

But I welcome the prospect of investigations because I want COMPLETE
accountability and I have a lot of questions.

Here's my subpoena list re: 9/11


Sibel Edmonds
FBI agents who want to testify about their anti-terrorist investigations before 9/11
The CIA person who delivered the 8-6 PDB to W and was told "OK, you've covered your ass."
Indira Singh
Cheney's young man who asked "do the orders still stand?"
The pilot and crew of the C-130H that was on both the Pentagon and Shanksville crash scenes
The FAA flight controllers whose audio tape was destroyed
CIA agent Larry Mitchell
Dr. Terry Callaway
experts from Raytheon on remote controlled aircraft
The Pentagon employee who told John Judge there were missiles at the Pentagoon
Secret Service agents who decided to let Bush stay in the classroom in Florida
General Mahmoud Ahmad
The FDNY chiefs who reported structural damage to WTC7
The FDNY personnel in the video who said "Move out, there's a bomb in the building"
The FDNY official who reported explosions to the news media in live TV reports
The engineer who ordered the WTC steel destroyed
The owners of the mob-connected scrap yards that recycled some "stolen" steel
The ASCE investigators who rejected the FDNY claims of WTC7 structural damage
William Rodriguez
Indira Singh's colleague from the FBI who testified to the 9/11 Commission
Condi Rice
George Tenet, Porter Goss, Sen. Bob Graham
Jamie Gorelick
Members of the 9/11 Commission staff who were suspicious of Cheney's account of 9/11
Philip Zelikow
Personnel who collected body parts and DNA samples from the Pentagon
Witnesses to the helicopter flying around the Pentagon just before the attack
Family members of aircraft passengers which family members have never applied for
compensation from the victims compensation fund
Rudy Giuliani
Security personnel at the WTC (about the powerdown)
Scott Forbes
Security Personnel at WTC7
The alarm company at WTC7 (turned the fire alarms to TEST mode early the morning of 9/11)
NIST personnel working on the WTC7 report
Dr. Steven Jones
The authors of the FEMA Appendix C metallurgical analysis of the evaporated steel
Myers, Eberhardt, Rummy
Sen. Mark Dayton
The Able Danger guys
Colleen Rowley
Kenneth Williams
David Schippers
Frasca and Maltbie
Robert Wright
Richard Clarke
Norman Mineta
Tugboat/barge personnel who transferred the steel to Fresh Kills
Fresh Kills personnel who saw the steel
Ground Zero clean up personnel
WTC7 cleanup personnel
Thomas Eagar
Civil Engineers who reported on the Pentagon
Ali Mohammed
Patrick Fitzgerald
Peter Lance
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Abdul Hakim Murad
Ramzi Yousef
Daniel Pearl's wife

[Senator]

23. "Organic Rationalization" is more like it

Just more "Organic" Rationalizing for Inaction.

You've got to start to wonder if some of these people consider themselves Beltway Repundocrats or something. The "Gingrich Mistake" was the "Clinton Victory." Because one was WRONG and one was RIGHT. (Sorry Euphemediots, you'll have to look those words up.) See how that changes their entire "strategeric dynamic" and thus, their confused conclusions?

This right/wrong business is a characteristic of somethng called "reality." The reality is that there really is nothing to "investigate" when it comes to Geneva violations and illegal spying. The regime admits and "defends" these clearly impeachable offenses -- in direct contradiction to rulings by the USSC, the FISA court, and additional federal courts. An emperor doesn't get more naked than this.

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

Doing the former (while not even "required") could well be helpful to bringing more of the public (already a majority) and even Republicans back into the reality-based community where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul.

Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face. That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it. If you don't broach the accusation, you garner zero attention or moral support for the activity.

(Oh, and since we're strategerizing, only one of these options GETS ON TV. The other remains on page A26 twice a week, until something non-somnambulistic happens -- or a "Worse Than 9/11" event makes it all a waste of time and effort.)

The public is already way ahead of the LieberDems on this:


Only 44% oppose because they're not being totally gaslighted by the DC/Euphemedia Wurlitzer. And 1/4 of that "opposition" are Dems following their craven "leadership." The public already knows that the never-elected, never-legitimate regime is the biggest obstacle to improvement in any situation, foreign or domestic. This obsession to "teach" our way out of problems (that we don't even have) is the definition of lunacy.

The reality is already at what the "organic magic will happen" folks are wishing it to be.

All that remains is to pull the trigger. If the LieberDems fail to do so, they'll rightly (and permanently) be perceived to be too weak to fight for our nation or to stand up to special interests. It may already be too late, as the "off the table" comment was a slap in the face to a cautiously-hopeful electorate and a finally-energized Dem Party base.

If they don't "get it" that this was about "get bush" and not about "get your faded wish list filled" it will be their last fleeting hurrah, as Rove is already claiming. And they may eventually "get it" another way as they become actively complicit with the ongoing war crimes themselves.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

===

[omega minimo]

25. "It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option."

[Bandit]

24. GOP talking point "Please Please don't Impeach"

It would not be good for the nation........Have they ever been right about anything? They are not right about this either. It would be very good for the nation. Investigate and Impeach or if time runs out Indict.....But for the sake of the nation we must hold them accountable...

[warrens]

29. That is what I have been arguing all along

Impeachment is just a word with a lame duck. Investigations and jail terms are what I want. If investigations find proveable crimes, both impeachment AND jail follow.

[petgoat]

30. Impeachment is NOT just a word. It is a statement to history

that the Constitution will be defended from domestic enemies.
It is a guide to future presidents about the limits to
federal powers in general and executive power specifically.

[pat_k]

32. Completely separate goals. Impeachment = Defense of Constitution.

Criminal Prosecution = Retribution.

Impeachment is about removing a threat to the Constitution by removing the official who is abusing their power to subvert the Constitution or for personal gain.

When the abuse has put the Constitution into breach, as Bush and Cheney's have, the ONLY means by which the terms of the "contract" can be reasserted is through impeachment -- the mechanism we put in the contract for that purpose.

Criminal prosecution is for the Courts, not Congress.

Investigation to determine the extent of the damage and to effect "repairs" is the purview of Congress, but such investigations are also independent of the need to remove the greatest and most immediate threat ASAP (i.e., the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of lawless war criminals).

[porphyrian]

31. No amount of talk is putting the cart before the horse.

Stop intentionally confusing the issue. Almost everyone, and most importantly all of our elected Congressmen, know the procedure to follow. Why not talk about impeachment now, especially given the glacial speed of drastic change in government? This kind of bullshit is like saying we should say we want brownies before we say we want a bowl, an egg and some brownie mix. Get the fuck over this.