Simple majority to impeach - 2/3 to convict

[Cerridwen]

Simple majority to impeach - 2/3 to convict

When the DCCC or any candidate says they need 2/3 majority to impeach, they are lying or obfuscating (euphemism for lying).

Clause 5. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

In practice, the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by the ranking member of majority party, draws up a list of offenses called the "articles of impeachment." If approved by a majority of Committee members, the articles of impeachment are sent to the full House of Representatives. The House then considers the articles of impeachment, and by a simple majority vote, can send the impeachment to the Senate for trial. (emphasis added)

THEN the Senate holds the trial and requires 2/3 majority to convict.

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ‘‘All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ——— ———’’; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due no-tice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same. (emphasis added; "shall" not "may", "will" not "may") link

One step at a time.

Simple majority to impeach, 2/3 majority to convict.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Yes, a failed impeachment would be such a big win for us. n/t

[Cerridwen]

8. My point was accuracy and truth, no more no less.

Seems simple enough.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. OK, here's the truth:

Let's say that by some miracle we had the votes for impeachment in the house (which we don't.) The Republicans in the Senate can be counted on to vote as a bloc and would assuredly doom any impeachment attempt. They have already demonstrated their complete refusal to compromise on the war, torture, illegal wiretapping, or any of the other perfectly valid reasons to impeach Bush. Why, then, would you expect them to compromise on impeachment?

[Cerridwen]

16. The trial. They would *have* to address the allegations which resulted

in impeachment. The impeachment, by the time the Senate receives it, has happened; it would not be an attempt.

Then they would *have* to "consider" the Articles of Impeachment.

edit to add: We got off topic, there - my main point is - majority to impeach, 2/3 to convict. Trying to keep the "talking points" honest.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Who?

The Republicans in the Senate? No they wouldn't. They'd happily scream and shout and refuse to debate any of the finer points of any impeachment resolution and declare the whole thing a political stunt.

[Cerridwen]

20. Their own rules give them no choice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ‘‘All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ——— ———’’; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due no-tice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

I wonder if we could get the media to show up? Eh, probably not. If they did, the repubs would be on record for refusing to address Articles of Impeachment which would be "on exhibit." Might be fun to watch them explain that to their constituents back home.

But still, majority to impeach, 2/3 to convict.

:D

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Remember the Clinton impeachment hearings...?

Or are you to young to remember them?

[Cerridwen]

24. The "wall to wall" coverage about blow jobs and cigars and bad/good

investments and travel and...

I remember the media told us everything about Clinton except how long it was when hard versus how long it is soft or the exact diameter, soft or hard.

Okay, now I wanna go wash my mind out with soap. That was way more visualization than I need this morning.

Simple majority to impeach, 2/3 to convict.

[kenfrequed]

55. Fine

Let the republicans in the senate line up to defend Bush after a month long raking over the coals and exposition of the crimes and sins of this administration.

Nothing would improve the Democrats chances of widening control over congress than an impeachment proceeding.

And only one Democratic presidential candidate would be hurt by said proceedings.

[TahitiNut]

21. Yeah... ZERO votes to impeach is soooooo much better.

What total, absolute garbage! :puke:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. What's the difference?

A failed impeachment attempt isn't going to solve anything.

[TahitiNut]

28. Even the fox made an effort before muttering "sour grapes" and giving up.

If, after some very erudite and well-reasoned posts on DU (as well as essays by Bruce Fein and John Dean) regarding this, anyone still clings to their cheap crystal balls and phobias about partisan advantage, I don't think there's anything I could say to bridge the moat of such fallacious retinopathy.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. I don't agree with you...

...but you get serious bonus points for the phrase "fallacious retinopathy."

:toast:

[Cerridwen]

40. The difference is they'd have to tell us the truth about why they're not

pursuing impeachment. The Democrats are the majority, it calls for a majority. The polls are showing the US population supports impeachment. Why aren't they listening to the polls now when they're practically glued to them during campaign season?

I want our representatives in the majority party to explain to me why they can't get a majority of votes from within our own party.

[ellisonz]

45. Umm...because they know they can't convict?

I don't think you're being lied to here.

[Cerridwen]

47. If they say they can't impeach because it takes 2/3, then they are not telling

the truth; impeachment requires a majority, not 2/3. If they say they can't convict because they need 2/3 and they don't have it, that's different. Currently, their argument and the latest "talking point" is that they can't impeach because it requires 2/3 and they don't have the votes. That's not true.

a majority can impeach - 2/3 to convict

[ellisonz]

48. ...

It's the truth. Why would any sane house member spend their political capital on something that is doomed to failure?

[Cerridwen]

49. Rather than repeat myself or repeat the words of others, I'll invite you to read

through the thread. Posts #32 and #33 have some good observations.

edit to add: and it's not the truth to say 2/3 to impeach

majority to impeach - 2/3 to convict

[ellisonz]

50. I already have.

Nothing new here...

[Cerridwen]

51. Nothing at all.

[kenfrequed]

57. Oh wow...

How to respond...

Well it would certainly prove that said congressperson is ACTUALLY standing up to the administrations actions. The very thing that created the Great Blue Wave of 2006 was opposition to the administration.

So it would improve your chances of reelection. Oh yeah and it would also allow you to go after the repubs that have been obstructing for the better part of a year. Of course it would also make them have to defend the president and truck out all their tired old excuses again.

Even if your a penny-sucking, political minded, strategy obsessed, real-politik, pragmatist, that doesnt care a whit about the unconstitutionality of this administration, there are still strategic and political reasons to follow through on this.

[orleans]

70. why would the american people vote to reelect some dem that

is too chickenshit and doesn't have enough spine to do what is right? shit! we can get that with those fucking republicans.

if these democrats can't show the american people they know how to protect the constitution, how the fuck are we suppose to believe they will protect this nation in a time of "TERROR"?

[ellisonz]

76. To be cynical, I think you vastly overestimate the attention span of the American people.

:hide:

[Cerridwen]

90. And I think you vastly underestimate the pain experienced by many in the US

due to this "war".

I'm talking about the families, friends, and communities of the troops killed; then there are the families, friends, and communities of the horrifically wounded; and the families, friends, and communities of those who are physically "okay" but who are experiencing PTSD and suicide in ever growing numbers.

And they're NOT ALL Iraqi vets. Reports are coming out that, since 9/11 and the advent of the war in Afghanistan then our invasion of Iraq, vets from previous wars are experiencing triggered symptoms of PTSD, primarily, but not solely, Vietnam vets.

There are the families in which children have lost one or both parents; there are the marriages which have been additional, though perhaps hidden, victims of war.

The only argument against impeachment that might work to change my mind, is the amount of pain it might add to those people I've listed above; and that's just the American side; I won't go into the numbers on the Iraqi side (at this time) or what we've allowed/caused to happen in Afghanistan.

But, if you think the people I've listed above would lose interest were it to be displayed for all to see, that *, et. al., began a war of aggression, solely to line their pockets and the pockets of their business friends, then I sincerely believe you underestimate your fellow citizens.

[ellisonz]

100. Still, numbers don't lie.

2004 215,694,000 122,295,345 56.69%
2000 205,815,000 105,586,274 51.31%
1996 196,511,000 96,456,345 49.08%
1992 189,529,000 104,405,155 55.09%
1988 182,778,000 91,594,693 50.11%
1984 174,466,000 92,652,680 53.11%
1980 164,597,000 86,515,221 52.56%
1976 152,309,190 81,555,789 53.55%
1972 140,776,000 77,718,554 55.21%
1968 120,328,186 73,199,998 60.83%
1964 114,090,000 70,644,592 60.92%
1960 109,159,000 68,838,204 63.06%

It's not like Americans have been running to the polls even with the draft during the Vietnam war.

And you don't need to lecture me about Iraq or the effect it has had on families in the US. I'm just not sure there are enough of them compared to the overall trends of voting in the United States. Much less to drive an impeachment and conviction...

[Cerridwen]

102. I'm sorry you saw it as a lecture. I was trying to bring more information out

that many people seem to forget - you also seemed to forget it.

Numbers don't lie, but numbers can be massaged and twisted and interpreted to mean...well, heaven forfend I tell you something you already know and lecture you again.

You and I don't agree. That's the bottom line of it. In the meantime, I'm happy to keep information in front of people who may not be aware of it.

[orleans]

112. but but but...i AM an american--and i certainly am not the only one thinking that way

my rep is a republica so i never vote for her anyway. if it was an inactive dem i'm not sure what i would do.

[puebloknot]

78. Why would any Dem bother to vote because we already know the fix is in...

...for Hillary? Might as well save our voting capital for another day. Feels like the same kind of defeatist reasoning to me.

Standing up for the truth of the matter has lost its clout with our Dem politicians with a finger to the wind at all times. And such a surrender to "reality" has produced a fine crop of cynical Democratic voters, too.

Impeachment is the process of bringing out in the open the crimes of those being impeached. It is a process which just might have a chance to force the Congress to take a stand -- for or against the crimes of this administration -- on the record. It only takes a simple majority to impeach and refer to the Senate for trial, where a 2/3 vote is required for conviction.

Failure to convict would *not* be a failed impeachment effort. It would show some evidence of spine on the part of the Dems -- not to mention some *sanity*.

[tekisui]

94. Because it is the right thing to do?

:shrug:

Crimes have been committed by those in highest office. If attempting to hold those criminals to account fails, it is an honest failure to save democracy, and not a loss.

[orleans]

69. you're right. it only takes a SIMPLE majority. whoever says otherwise

is lying.

[Chulanowa]

64. A conviction is icing

The cake is forcing each, and every single indignity this man, his administration and his party have dealt to America out into the open. Making these sorry fucks answer the qustions, explain the evidence, and display their own evasiveness to the American people. The media being what it is, it will throw everything said onto the air - partisan pocketbooks don't stretch nearly as far as raw ratings do in that game.

Indictment or not, impeachment hearings are a win-win. They show that we are willing to do something. They demonstrate that there is justice in America. And when the Republican party stands as a block to the 2/3 needed, America will see them for what they are - partisan, corrupt, useless assholes without a single bit of care for America.

Impeachment means we win, even without a conviction. Do you understand better now? And it's a whole hell of a lot better than never making the attempt.

[ellisonz]

77. Good luck with that...

[Chulanowa]

107. You as well, sir. Apathy is hard work, I understand.

[orleans]

68. you don't press charges against someone based on your guess

as to what a judge or jury will decide. it's their job to press charges.

[orleans]

67. you mean a failed conviction, right? impeachment is in the house

and we need a SIMPLE majority. that we have imo

[John Kerry VonErich]

87. Oh yeah

It worked for the republicans during Clinton's impeachment.

:sarcasm:

[Thothmes]

113. IMO just like the failed impeachment of President Clinton

[onehandle]

2. Bush and Cheney ain't going anywhere without the 2/3rds.

How's that?

[Cerridwen]

5. At least it's accurate.

Kinda my point.

[onehandle]

9. Yes. Democrats are liars. Got it. nt

[Cerridwen]

12. Yep, exactly what I said. If a majority is needed to impreach and someone

tells me it takes 2/3 to impeach, and I call them on it, I'm saying they're ALL liars and not just those who said that to me. Because I can't separate the individual liar from the group. And I demand specificity from those with whom I speak so I don't have to address the message but only attack the messenger.

Yep, that's me, alrighty.

[PassingFair]

32. Air the crimes before the American people.

Drag the criminals into the light of day.

The ignominy heaped upon Clinton for a BLOW JOB cost the
democrats the 2000 election to a MORON and his minions.

The exposure of the crimes committed by the BFEE would
put and keep DEMOCRATS in power for WELL into the foreseeable future.

[Cerridwen]

36. Very good points and very well stated, too. Thank you.

I'm surprised the Democrats don't see what could be the perfect Democratic storm.

[Senator]

72. Not Necessarily So

They could well be persuaded to "see the wisdom" of leaving, rather than end up with a 2/3rds Dem majority in the Senate and House.

And beyond that, we may already have the votes.

Not that ultimate removal is particularly relevant to making the objection -- doing the right thing.

----

[MrCoffee]

3. remove the plank from your own eye before you pick the mite out of your neighbor's

there are many, many DUer's who don't know anything about the procedures behind impeachment.

[Cerridwen]

15. There's a new "talking point" going around.

I'd like to see it revealed as inaccurate.

[MrCoffee]

18. it's an old one around here...lol

but :thumbsup: for the PSA

[Cerridwen]

19. Yeah, you're right on that.

PSA, yep, that's what I should have called it.

Thanks.

:D

[lame54]

4. exactly - it' very do-able

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow

[stray cat]

6. and how would that change the situation the US is in or our leadership?

[Cerridwen]

11. How would accuracy and truth change the situation?

The mind boggles.

[indypaul]

7. But it is

"off the table." So "W" has already accepted the
leaderships surrender. Our leadership put the
white flag up the very first day of this Congress.
Now, how can we make hem take it down and make them
act responsibly?

[Cerridwen]

10. Start by "making" them tell us the truth rather than lie to us.

"They" have created a talking point that it takes 2/3 to impeach. It's a lie.

[rjones2818]

14. F**k the leadership!

We should all know by now that this is how we should react to them.

Here's the thing. Imeachment goes forward from the House on Dick and then W. If it goes via the hearings route then the info is laid out for the citizens of the US to ponder upon. Once it goes to the Senate, there' a trial. During the trial the prosecution lays out it's evidence and the defense tries to defend what this administration has done. It's a losing proposition for the Repugs even if there isn't a conviction.

Impeach the bastards now (even the spineless can join this one)!

[warren pease]

25. Exactly...

We don't have the votes in the Senate? Tough shit. Do the right thing anyway. And what the hell do democrats have to fear about impeaching a world-class prick with a 9 percent approval rating?

Maybe when mass media is forced to cover impeachment hearings and the sheer magnitude of Cheney's crimes against the American people and the rest of the planet are revealed to the public, voting for impeachment might just be the only way to preserve House and Senate seats in the next elections.

Consider that 55 percent of the people polled a few days ago wanted Cheney impeached despite being hammered with the opposite message by democratic "leadership" and virtually all mass media outlets.

Bushie isn't the most unpopular president ever because he's been subjected to intense media scrutiny. Exactly the opposite.

Congress' ratings aren't in the tank because they've been raked over the media coals for not impeaching or ending the Iraq occupation. Just the opposite.

Which means that huge numbers of people have arrived at those conclusions in spite of, not because of, mass media. Imagine what might happen when the spin ends and testimony takes its place.

There won't be enough tar and feathers in the entire Mid-Atlantic to do a proper job on these bastards.


wp

[Me.]

26. I Appreciate You're Pointing Out The Correct Numbers Regarding This

It's on much the same line as the meme that 60 votes are needed to pass a bill.

[Cerridwen]

27. I appreciate you getting my point.

Thank you.

I was just trying to keep it real/honest/in perspective.

I don't like members of my own party trying to "pull the wool" over my eyes. Actually, I don't like when anyone does that.

:D

[Yukari Yakumo]

30. Anyone who says impeachment is good enough is stupid beyond belief

Just what would a failed impeachment accomplish? Many Americans do not trust Chimpy & Co. and most don't approve of Chimpy. No "trial" (which will be farcical, at best) will change that fact much at all.

[Cerridwen]

31. ? You talking to me?

Surely you have a better argument than "{you're} stupid beyond belief".

[orleans]

71. john dean was talking to randi about this--he said to start with

david addington. it works up to cheney. i don't know if i agree.

[PassingFair]

34. OJ was found "not guilty", too.

How does the American public feel about him?

AIR THE CRIMES.

The public needs to see the charges and the evidence.

[rjones2818]

41. And anybody that says not impeaching is good enough is deserving of...

[TahitiNut]

61. Oy! Of motes and logs!

Keerist! :eyes:

[omega minimo]

101. anyone who says not impeaching is good enough is stupid beyond belief

Just what is a "failed impeachment"?

Those who are so hostile to the concept seem to not get the concept or understand the process (or what is at stake)

[hootinholler]

33. I can't believe I'm the first rec!

This point must be drummed into the public! The public opinion is finally already in favor of impeachment.

The report from a committee considering articles of impeachment will be covered in the MSM. The criminal nature of the administration will be documented publicly.

The passage of a resolution of impeachment forces the Senate to sit and listen to that report and other evidence, publicly, on the record. There is no higher priority for the Senate than considering charges resulting from a resolution of impeachment.

At the very least, we will know where we stand exactly. I can't see a down side to it.

-Hoot

[Cerridwen]

35. Hi, hootinholler. Thank you for the rec.

Seems so obvious, doesn't it? I guess it's not.

A simple majority could start the wheels of justice grinding. The Democratic Party is a majority in the house; a simple majority; and they're being let off the hook because they "don't have the votes". It's not popular, it's not prudent - the polls and the public say differently.

Time to call them on it.

[KingFlorez]

37. And if Bush is aquitted, then what?

Even if there is a trial, no Republicans are going to vote to convict and that isn't going to change. I don't see the point in holding a trial that is would very likely result in an acquittal that will just be a victory for Republicans in an election year.

[hootinholler]

38. See reply 33.

[Cerridwen]

39. How many repubs will put party before career? All? Some? Any?

Seriously, if there is a trial, and the evidence of impeachable offenses is on exhibit before them and before the US public, and they still do not vote to convict, what happens to their campaigns for re-election; what happens to their career; what happens to their party? See passingfair's post #32 above.


Look at the Articles of Impeachment? They'd have a lot of dirty tricks and dirty laundry to explain before even getting to a vote.

edit to add: also see post #33 - sorry, hootinholler :blush:

[alfredo]

42. 25th amendment takes simple majority.

[Cerridwen]

43. Yep. n/t

[alfredo]

44. He is acting rather erratic don't you think?

[Cerridwen]

46. He's not the only one, either...hmmm, it might be unprecedented

(kinda like the SCOTUS interfering in the Presidential election), but, gee, ya think we could take out two or more at once? Lot of erratic and er, questionable behavior in the People's House these days.

Ah, well, I can dream.

[alfredo]

52. Of course the only ones not seeing the madness of king George

are the 20 to 24%.

[Cerridwen]

53. And the ones who do, up close and personal, are protecting on of "their own"

apparently thinking they'll handle everything and there won't be some break with reality that takes us all to hell in a hand basket. Or maybe, they plan to grab a little of that power for themselves. Who really knows and will tell?

Yeah, I don't particularly trust "my" leaders these days.

[alfredo]

54. Never trust leaders. They shouldn't be called leaders. They should be

called public servants, and should be reminded of that often.

[Cerridwen]

56. Good point. Very good point. We should start a "new" talking point...

Public servants. They seem to have forgotten that. Time, as you say, to say it often.

[alfredo]

58. I think that would be a good thing to write about tonight. Mitch

McConnell needs to hear it, same for Jim Bunning.

[Canuckistanian]

59. And they couldn't even manage 2/3 for Clinton

Not surprising, considering the worst he could be charged with is perjury.

The worst in Bush/Cheney's case is far more serious.

[Cerridwen]

63. I truly wonder if the repubs are so cynical and so disconnected from their

constituents, that they would put party loyalty over the constitution, in front of a "live" audience. Would they go on record, in large numbers, as supporting impeachable offenses? They've managed to be somewhat sly about it up until now. You've got to be a political junkie to see what they've done. But would they do it where all could see and hear?

[Canuckistanian]

65. First off

You'd have to have an audience that thinks there were actual crimes committed.

The way the Bush/Cheney administration is being treated in the media, it's like everyone's debating the "fine points" of obscure laws, not the wholesale raping of the founding document.

Until the public "gets it" or has it explained to them clearly, I don't expect a groundswell any time soon.

[Cerridwen]

66. As someone pointed out - upthread or another thread - the public is coming

to the conclusion that * and cheney should be impeached, that they have committed impeachable offenses, in spite of the media obfuscation.

A trial in the Senate might create that very groundswell.

I'm not the only one in the US who hates being played a fool or condescended to; the public would pay attention to a Senate trial even without blow jobs and cigars; many of them have very real "skin in the game", that is, friends, family, and/or co-workers in Iraq.




edit: typo

[Senator]

75. The ground is alreadly swollen

The public wanted impeachment as a "priority" for the new congress, even before the last election.



That's only 44 opposed, with 51 in favor. A January poll showed 58 percent just wanting the regime "over." And the latest ARG poll shows 70 percent believing the regime has "abused" their office.

This really is a case of the DC Dem "leaders" acting as the firewall for the regime.

Oh, and on your question about what GOP Senators might do if actually put on the spot to defend these war criminals publicly, to the world, to their families, and for their own place in history; here's an indication:

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

You see, gov't officials who defend war criminals are committing a war crime themselves. Something the DC Dems would do well to be mindful of.

---

[puebloknot]

79. That's why "our" Dems are resisting impeachment. The whole...

...house of cards, when it collapses, will reveal a lot of complicit Dems, as well as Republicans.

So how do we convince them? Can we try and convict the top tier and let the underlings go, as was done at Nuremberg? First, it seems, there has to be a collapse of the system. And then who conducts the trials?

It boggles the mind!

[Senator]

85. I don't think it's that hopeless

In fact, I think they're beginning to see that continuing to fail is just making things worse -- for the nation, for our party, and for themselves.

We just need to keep demanding impeachment as the only act available to them/us. Even if it only lodges a formal objection to that which has been done without the consent of the governed. To show that we are not beyond redemption.

Only then can any accountability even begin.

---

[puebloknot]

110. I'm going to "coattail" on your hope for now! I'll keep using my voice...

...to keep things brewing, but I can't feel my way toward a real solution. Maybe I'm just tired!

[Yukari Yakumo]

82. You basically screwed up your own argument.

I would not count "Low Priority" as reliable. If it turns into a partisan circus (and it will), those in the "Low Priority" group will switch over to "No".

That leaves barely over a quarter of respondents favoring impeachment. That's hardly a mandate I would go with. In fact, most, if not all, of the candidates would used impeachment as their primary campaign issue lost their race.

[Senator]

86. No, you basically screwed up your own argument.

By falsely claiming that the answer was "low priority." That is not true.

The answer is clearly "lowER priority" -- which is still a priority. You are basing your opinion on an oxymoron of your own creation.

And in fact, only one competitive candidate ran on impeachment -- and won.

---

[RebelSansCause]

60. so let's say we did impeach cheney and bush

would they then be unable to run the country while the trial was held before the senate? i mean even if we know we are not going to convict, it seems to me that removing them from power by drawing the trial out to, oh i don't know, the last day of bush's presidency does not sound like such a bad idea. hell, even freezing the government for 2 or 3 months would not be so bad. so would this happen would bush/cheney then be totally unable to run the country?

[Cerridwen]

62. It was something I was wondering, too.

An argument that's frequently been used is that impeachment keeps someone, it's never clear to me who, from being able to do their job. If that someone is the President, or in this case bush, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.

Another argument I've read is that bush would use impeachment as an excuse to bomb Iran; using Iran as the distraction from impeachment proceedings. The nuclear game of chicken, I guess it is.

I'm not sure what would happen; neither, I think, are many others who write otherwise.

But, it's still simple majority to impeach - 2/3 to convict.

If there are other reasons to keep impeachment off the table, I'd like the Democratic leadership to explain it with something other than, it takes 2/3 and we don't have the votes; or the public wouldn't like it, or we wouldn't be able to do our job. That last one could be debated that impeachment IS their job.

[Yukari Yakumo]

83. Impeachment didn't stop Bill. It certainly won't Chimpy and Darth Cheney. {nt}

uguu

[Cerridwen]

91. How many high-ranking members of the administration were covering up for

Bill? How many do you think are covering up for *, et. al.?

Are the alleged crimes similar? Are the deaths of Americans and Iraqis in the same class as a blow job, or lying about a blow job? Are the sentences for each the same?

Did Bill out a CIA operative and invoke state secrets to gag another whistle-blower? Do you think those who did will be able to blow it off easily (pun intended)?

We're talking potential war crimes versus a man who couldn't keep his pants zipped. I think the scramble for cover might be a bit more intense and a bit more broad (another intended pun).

Please, notice, I didn't resort to name calling even once.

[upi402]

73. I now think it WAY past time to impeach

I felt the Dems had some cards they were holding and didn't want to tip their hand. Now I see they are sold out and useless for restoring our republic.

[Didereaux]

74. Past time to impeach...wait until after election then PROSECUTE!

That of course presumes that someone like Obama does not get elected...he already announced he would not have the DOJ go after the past administration, because he is a 'foward looking' fella.(Speech made in South Carolina a few weeks past).

Actually it might be a good idea for a question to be presented to each candidate at one of the deremaining debates. Would you, yes or no, support a full scale investigation of the past administration by your DoJ?

Wonder how many would actually say yes?

[puebloknot]

80. Kucinich would say yes. He already has, several times.

I agree. These "debates" are a charade. We need substantive questions, and equal time to each candidate to answer them. (I'm already turning blue while I hold my breath for that to happen.)

(Edited to add text to message.)

[Yukari Yakumo]

109. This is a better idea.

Impeachment and conviction only boots him out of office, and he has only a little over a year left. oooooooo...

If someone could hand Chimpy's ass to The Hague, that would be infinitely better.

As I see it now, impeachment is nothing more than ego stroking than anything else.

[tomg]

81. Thanks for re-stating majority to impeach,

and 2/3rds to convict. I hope it places it in perspective. There won't be a conviction, but that is not the point. Simply on the part of all the representatives, it is the ethical thing to do. More to the point, tactically, it is the best thing they can do.

DU is very well informed about what is going on. The average American, even college-educated citizens are, far less and painfully so. To take the students I teach as an illustration: they are fairly moderate, middle to upper-middle class, generally democratic-supporting 18-to-23 year olds. In a recent class, they did not know the meaning of rendition, waterboarding, habeas corpus, and I could go on. They did not know that there had been demonstrations taking place, that Code Pink or UFPJ or ANSWER even existed.

The trial itself would act as the greatest consciousness raising event. Consider it, if you will, one vast teach-in on the war, on corruption, and on the tube all the time. Will there be conviction? Frankly, I doubt it. But if there is a trial, and if Bush even tries to go to Iran, and if what happened in the run-up to war, and the torture, and the violation of our civil liberties, and the use of mercenaries is made public, it would be stopped.

As for the Republicans who voted against it. Granted the right would say that the Democrats are only doing it because "it is political." So what. It doesn't make it any less right. The Republicans would be forced to vote for it or oversee the end of their party. For me, even not getting a conviction, it is a win-win.

[Yukari Yakumo]

84. LOL

That would only work in fantasy-land.

1) DU is not much better informed than the next guy. We are far more opinionated, though often many slide into sheer lunacy and throw petty hissyfits when they don't get their way. But it is clear that most of us are not that well informed as to how our own government works.

2) Most people already dislike Chimpy and Co. He lingers with about a 30% approval rating and over 50% disapprove. Just what would impeachment accomplish?

And don't forget how the M$M will spin things. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to gain from a failed impeachment, but there is potentially a lot to lose. Impeachment is not win-win, it's lose-lose.

[tomg]

89. Well, yes and no. Seriously,

I will concede that at DU we do have a tendency to sometimes get our nuts and bolts facts of government wrong ( hence my thanks on the 2/3rd majority - despite knowing better, I get them backwards sometimes). And the lunacy and tantrums are here. But we are pretty well informed as to the "events" that are taking place. And I mean event as event. For example, we know that when DK introduced the resolution, it was the Republicans that flipped it in favor. I teach in a college. Three days later, members of the history department - at a college - did not know what had happened. These are sharp, intelligent and generally well-informed good citizens. I go drinking with four friends every Friday. One is painter and environmentally active, one is a librarian, one is a union rep where he works, one is a teacher - and all are as left as they come. Same three days later - just didn't know. And when I say about both groups that they didn't know, they didn't know about the resolution or that it was now in judiciary. And these guys are generally very well informed ( in fact, one knew the nuts and bolts better than I did). In both cases, we have intelligent, left-leaning people who are active who - for reasons of having a life outside of political obsession - are unaware of "events."

This is pretty much across the board - from the tasering of Klutzo the Clown to the Krongard Brothers and the Blackwater hearings. While we might get the Posse Comitatus screwed up, we know something weird is happening because we have x amount of "events". We are a vast community, and we get bits and pieces from all over the country, and we put the pieces together (sometimes in pretty paranoid combinations). We also know that when we read about Blackwater and the hearings in the paper, and read "Blackwater, which protects U.S. diplomats and other State Department officials in Iraq" we are going to add, "and indiscriminately wastes people and is run by a fascist fundamentalist loon." Blackwater, to most people? My son's significant other's brother is a merc. He didn't know that much about Blackwater.

This kind of material gets out in trial.

As to your second point, you are right. Most people hate Chimp and Co., but it is ina kind of loose - "geez, what an asshole," kind of way. What so many liked originally - he is just "one of us" - has become, "well, he is just one of us, but real incompetent and stubborn and dumb and dangerous." They hate the war. They hate that the economy is tanking. They really are completely confused about immigration. There is a major difference between thinking "incompetent asshole who has greedy, war-mongering advisors" and realize "deliberate lying, deliberate destruction of the constitution, deliberate and systematic corruption."

The M$M could spin it, but even here, I think we have to take into account that we are going to have a dem administration in 2008. Some will spin it one way, and it is in the interests of the the others to spin it another way. And, to an extent, it will be televised and it will be on record.

I guess in my earlier post to which you responded, I was a little too optinmistic and "done deal" for us. There is a strategic risk to go ahead ( I am putting the ethics aside), but I do think that as a strategy there is far more to be gained.

Sorry to go on, but you have two very real and solid concerns, and I just wanted to respond.

[Cerridwen]

95. I don't agree with you and your argument would have carried more weight

with me if you hadn't begun you first post to this thread with name calling; I consider that a "petty hissyfit"; hardly informed debate or argument.

1) And then you continued with name calling - "sheer lunacy" and "petty hissyfit" and another slam against DUers.

2) Impeachment results in a trial in the Senate. Articles of Impeachment are read on the Senate floor into the official record. The media might even deign to cover it. The American public, including those "not well informed" DUers you took a jab at, might learn a thing or two about who is occupying the White House.

I, for one, would rather our country was governed based on the Constitution rather than what the media might say or do. Should the media decide to spin and contort, perhaps there are enough of us paying attention we could inform our friends and neighbors of what's really happening. Though if you are any example of the debate skills of my allies, I think we might be screwed and you might be right that impeachment would turn into a lose-lose rather than the win-win it has the potential to be.

Please, note, I did resort to name calling in this post.

edit: spelling

[Cerridwen]

96. And a P.S. to my previous reply

One of the reasons for this OP was to help keep informed my fellow DUers. Perhaps those you think are less-informed are, is because rather than add to the debate, you slam posters and DUers. Or, perhaps you don't see the information because you're too busy flinging mud. Not a very effective way to add to our collective knowledge base. Why would anyone want to post information to a board when they're going to be given grief and called names by someone who doesn't agree?

It takes a thick skin around here some days; I hope we don't lose valuable information because some would rather inform than fight.

Please, note, I think this falls into the category of name calling; though I think it's more about tactics and style.

[B Calm]

88. As Congressmen, it’s their duty to put things right again.

The whole world knows this administration’s word is no good. In fact, Bush is probably the first American President to be scorned, looked down upon and viewed with distrust and suspicion by the entire free world. Think how the world use to look up to America as a bastion of truth. How sad for America right now and how humiliating for us. They must impeach, it's their duty!!!

[fascisthunter]

92. Well If Our Congress Can't get the Two Thirds Vote

after airing out the dirty laundry of Bushco, it would mean our whole government was infiltrated by too much corruption to truly govern and hold Bushco accountable. I know why some don't want impeachment, it would open a huge can of worms. It's time to tear down the facade for the excuses for not going forward with the impeachment process looks and is weak and illustrates that our government is in shambles.

Until the whole truth is brought to light, nobody really knows what will happen. If the truth is not revealed we will be lost as a democratic Republic. Don't give in to comfort folks.... for dealing with the truth is always harder later on. We are getting to the point of "No-Return".



To the OP: thank you for this info. I know you were not trying to make a statement one way or the other. My reply was in general and not to you in particular.

[Cerridwen]

97. True, that. Then we would have it in front of our faces and wouldn't be able

to deny it; though I'm sure many could.

Yeah, I think it's time to open that can of worms and go fishing. Let's see who is in our government and what they think they're doing in our name.

You're welcome for the information, and although my OP took no stance, I have continued to respond to the posts in this thread and I have taken a stance; mostly due to the give and take that's gone on in the thread. Posting about it has helped me to decide how I stand on this issue. So, as I hoped to inform others, I learned a thing or two for myself. :D

[L. Coyote]

93. It would be disrespectful to R tradition to NOT impeach. Think Clinton and

where the Rs placed the bar on impeachment. We really should respect their precedent. It is the only polite thing to do.

[Cerridwen]

98. There ya go. Good manners demands it!

"Kill 'em with kindness" also came to mind.

Thank you, for the grin this morning.

:hi:

[wordpix]

99. impeachment should have been done in 2004 when the WMD weren't found

Now, however, by the time we get around to doing it, it will be election time.

I'm still for impeaching the bastards, for no other reason (but there are LOTS of reasons) to stop * from pardoning all his rats.

[Amanita]

103. We got simple majority in the House...

[Cerridwen]

104. Welcome to DU, Amanita.

Yes, we do have a simple majority in the House. Indeed we do.

:hi:

[Amanita]

105. Thank you. By next year, we might even have the 2/3 in the senate

if Dems go along with this. Many republicans will vote for this chance as well, I am sure...

[Yukari Yakumo]

108. But it ain't that simple

The Blue Dogs (and others) will vote against this if it's seen as a partisan motion. They alone are enough to make the resolution fail.

[Buns_of_Fire]

106. Perhaps it helps to think of them as DISTINCT processes.

To many people "impeachment" EQUALS "removal from office" -- which, as we all know, ain't the same.

"Impeachment" is an indictment, for sure, to be followed by a Senate trial.

But it's also the strongest possible rebuke (or censure, if you will) that the House can level. Just the act of impeachment (not necessarily removal) is not something to be dismissed lightly, regardless of the chances of conviction.

[porphyrian]

111. Kick for that clarification. -n/t