How Impeachment Would Catch Fire

[babylonsister]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-yourgrau/how-impeachment-would-cat_b_75539.html

Barry Yourgrau
How Impeachment Would Catch Fire

Posted December 5, 2007 | 06:59 PM (EST)


This business with the new NIE report on Iran and the revelation of the further astonishing bad faith by Bush and Cheney on little matters such as, oh, war, raises again the issue of impeachment.

If having lied yet again about such matters doesn't constitute grounds for impeachment, pray WHAT DOES?

But the Democrats who control this issue in Congress, Conyers and Pelosi, shake their wise heads and say: Sorry, we just don't have the votes.

Really? Apart from how then will we ever have a chance at an accounting of the radical criminality (no hyperbole) of this Administration, I want to point out this:

Pushing impeachment will not just be a vote count session in Congress. That is a false reductio of the phenomenon. Starting impeachment hearings will launch a social dynamo that will effect the vote count, I can't see how not. Start some serious impeachment activity and you will have media and newspapers--I'll bet on the NY Times, whose editorial board seems wised up to what's happening--calling for impeachment.

You will get masses of folk out in the street everyday, in Washington, in every big and little corner of this country, calling for these usurpers to be evicted from the body politic. (For starters.)

You light some impeachment fire and watch the flames surge across this country. Get hundreds of thousands--millions?--of furious people marching. Then see how the votes start add up then.

Whitney Balliett, the great jazz critic for the New Yorker, had a great line about Big Joe Turner. He said Big Joe Turner has such a huge voice, all he has to do is open his mouth and get out of the way.

Please open your mouths, Pelosi and Conyers, and get out of the way.

Or else what? Hillary or someone comes into office, and we all have bygones be bygones? Until the next time?

[madokie]

1. could not agree more

[earth mom]

147. Impeachment is up to the PEOPLE. Don't let the naysayers & disinfo agents on this thread

tell us all any different.

[demnan]

2. The problem is Pelosi

The Judiciary Committee would start work on this if she allowed. Christ! Conyers wrote a book about it. I know this as I was part of a group who met with them yesterday. She needs a serious challenge for her Congressional seat who will mention impeachment every day (not Sheehan, her heart's in the right place but not making much headway).

So its actually up to the people of San Francisco. I hope the people of San Francisco can save us. For the last year, I'vd done all I could and am just about to give up.

[crikkett]

3. This has been my attitude for months now

Pelosi and Conyers don't want to deal with impeachment, or there would be more rhetoric from them, more righteous indignation, more call to action.

But they just helped to pass a law, didn't they, the thought-crime bill, that could arguably make such rhetoric illegal if it is meant to force a change in policy...

[ThomWV]

4. Kick and RECOMMEND!

It is preposterous to think that the press associated with the impeachment would not bring people who have been paying little attention around to seeing what has been going on. There are many Republicans in Congress - both houses - who's districts have changed and would support impeachment and hang the Representative who did not agree.

Votes would change. Be sure of it.

[williesgirl]

5. k&r - maybe Keith would help with this?

[99th_Monkey]

6. Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. If Dems don't expose the traitors, they become enablers

of the traitors, and thereby traitors themselves, as MLK Jr. said about the complicity of silence in the face of evil ...

The whole damn country, with exception of the 20% or so who are apparently braindead, KNOWS it's the right thing and yearns for
corrective action at the highest levels i.e. impeachment.

Pelosi and Conyers are increasingly an embarrassment to their party and a disgrace to their nation at this point, and have absolutely
NOTHING to lose by launching impeachment hearings .. well, nothing to lose except the ire of informed patriotic Americans and the
watching world that is.

[LeftCoast]

7. Hmm...and people will hear about this from Fox and CNN?

I'm sure that unlike every other story of importance, this ONE story will actually be told without a RW spin.

M'kay.

[GOTV]

8. People are not interested in impeachment....

... that's why it won't happen. Starting the proceeding will not change that.

[Beam Me Up]

9. I'm interested and I know I'm not the only one.

So, what you are saying is wrong. A lot of people ARE interested in impeachment. A lot of people voted Democrat in the last election BECAUSE they are interested in impeachment.

Nothing has happened because CONGRESS isn't interested, not because "people" aren't interested.

[GOTV]

14. I didn't say all people aren't interested - I just said people...

... so your argument is baseless.

I should have said most people are not interested. The polls back me on that. Sure there are two or three polls that find a carefully worded question can get a tiny majority for impeachment but the bulk of the polling shows otherwise.

The people are not interested, and congress represents them.

[onenote]

39. Most people who voted "Democrat" didn't do it because of impeachment

(1) How many candidates even talked about impeachment during the 2006 campaign? (2) How many of those who did won?

The answers: (1) Hardly any of them and (2) even fewer.


You may have voted for an impeachment proponent, but most Democrats weren't talking about it during the campaign.

[redqueen]

12. Most polls seem to indicate the opposite. (nt)

[GOTV]

16. I'll go poll for poll with you. I'll even start

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 16-17, 2006. N=1,020 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should 26
Should Not 69
Unsure 5

Your turn

[redqueen]

18. March of last year?

:rofl:

[GOTV]

20. I'm going oldest to newest....

[redqueen]

21. I can't find many newer ones.

Also, I apologized for the tone of my response. I am sorry about that.

[GOTV]

24. I've got plenty because it's a topic that concerns me...

... no need to apologize. Let's just keep going and find out what the polls actually say in aggregate.

[redqueen]

26. Based on your two most recent posts...

and the fact that you're closely monitoring this due to your interest, I'll take your word for it.

Thank you for taking the time... and the offer to provide more.

It's a day for learning ugly truths, it seems.

[GOTV]

30. It's a sad fact that we've not been able to sell the dangers of the Bush admin to a wider audience..

... largely, I believe, because of the corporate media and their interest in protecting Bush policies.

But, to throw all my cards on the table, I'll show you the the polling history against impeachment is really quite extensive. Many groups have polled and asked the question many ways and we seem to have a fairly consistent 1/3 to 2/5 max support for impeachment.



Source: InsiderAdvantage
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 621 registered American voters, conducted on Apr. 30 and May 1, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

Would you favour or oppose the impeachment by Congress of U.S. president George W. Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney?

Favour 39%
Oppose 55%
Undecided 6%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15689



Rassmusen
Survey of 1,000 Adults
July 5-6, 2007

Should President Bush be impeached and removed from office?

Yes 39%
No 49%


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/president_bush/39_favor_impeaching_bush




ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE ARCHIVED AT pollingreport.com


USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 6-8, 2007. N=1,014 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"


There Is Justification 36
There Is Not Justification 62
Unsure 3



CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"


Should Be 30
Should Not Be 69
Unsure 1


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 16-18, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.


"Regardless of how you plan to vote, if the Democrats win this year's congressional elections do you think it would be right for them to try to impeach President Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, or not?"


Would Be Right 30
Would Not Be Right 62
Unsure 7



Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 8-11, 2006. N=1,357 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"If George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant, do you think that is an impeachable offense, or not an impeachable offense?"


Is 36
Is Not 56
Unsure 8


ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 6-9, 2006. N=1,027 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"


Should 33
Should Not 66
Unsure 1




Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 16-17, 2006. N=1,020 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should 26
Should Not 69
Unsure 5

[MonkeyFunk]

33. Thank you, GOTV...

I've been saying the same thing, but people just respond with "an overwhelming majority of Americans want Bush impeached," but they can never provide any evidence.

That's not to say I don't WANT Bush impeached - but there's just no national will to do so, and lacking that, the votes simply won't follow. I don't like it, but that's the truth.

[GOTV]

40. You're Welcome - I see the same thing...

... I'm just trying to bring some evidence to the table to help us better understand what we're seeing (a seemingly unresponsive congress) and I'm frequently treated like an interloping freeper for it which I too would love to see Bush removed from office.

[Usrename]

110. Where's the one that asks about treason in the outing of Plame?

Something like, if the president or vp gave aid and comfort to the enemy in the war on terror, should they be impeached?

What do you think the response would be? Naaaa, never mind.

[NewJeffCT]

118. Support for Clinton's impeachment never reached 40%

I think it maxed out around 38% or so.

[GOTV]

123. You're right. And that's why Clinton was acquitted.

[NewJeffCT]

130. That said

support for the Bush impeachment is already at that level - if there were a special prosecutor and actual televised hearings like there was with Watergate, would support grow?

Support for Clinton's impeachment was under 20% when they actually started the process - so it doubled along the way and then later dropped.

If there was a similar double after the appointment of a special prosector and Congressional hearings, support would be in the 65-75% range.

[GOTV]

132. Perhaps support would grow - I suspect not but anyway, it's not the point I'm trying to make here...

... I'm just trying to point out to those who are sure the public is demanding impeachment, not in a hypothetical future but right now, are probably wrong according to the best info we can get - polls.

[NewJeffCT]

133. I agree with that

There is no groundswell out there to impeach Bush at this time:

However, if you change the question to things like:

If it was proven that Bush knew that Iraq had no WMD and lied about it, would you support impeachment?

If it was shown that Bush's wiretap program illegally targeted American citizens and peace groups, would you support impeachment?

If Bush was shown to have directed the US attorney firings to obstruct investigations into high profile Republicans or to encourage political prosecutions of Democrats, woudl you support impeachment?

How would that change the results?

[GOTV]

135. Well, at least one poll I know of did ask such a question...

... and it showed, I think it was 52% support. Which says, even if Bush is known to have mislead the country there is still only a tiny majority that supports impeachment. If you want the details it was posted elsewhere in this thread.

Of course, since the question is a hypothetical we don't really know what support for impeachment is now because we don't know how many people believe the precedent. Many people could easily believe something like "Sure, if Bush lied I'd support impeachment, but he didn't, so I don't". That guy would be part of the 52% but still be opposed to impeachment.

[earth mom]

148. OMFG. FAUX NEWS? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!

Is there ANY doubt as to your agenda at this point?

:rofl:

[redqueen]

19. I'm sorry... that was rude of me to laugh.

Here's another nationwide poll, taken around that same time.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6796

[GOTV]

23. Yes, I've seen that one. The famous "hypothetical"

It asked what we WOULD think if such and such but then doesn't ask how many people believe the such and such.

As I admitted, there are a few polls that show teeny-tiny majorities. Not near enough to convince GOP Senators to support conviction.


Here's another

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 6-9, 2006. N=1,027 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"


Should 33
Should Not 66
Unsure 1

[earth mom]

149. You are right to laugh. What that dude is posting on this thread is a TOTAL JOKE.

:rofl:

[warren pease]

68. Polls: here's some, including the latest ARG results on impeachment

Somehow, despite mass media's predictable though shameful refusal to even address this issue, Americans are getting the point that these criminals must be removed from office and made to pay for their crimes. Note the fourth group of poll results here.

Keep in mind that most polling organizations have refused to poll on impeachment, preferring to ask my opinion of OJ and Britany and the Grammies and the weather in the northwest. Also keep in mind that something besides mass media is driving these results. There may be a clue if you look at the polls regarding Libby's get out of jail free card just above the one on impeachment.

Clearly, something's changed in the past year and a half. Pure disgust with BushCo propelled democrats to victory in 2006, even though investigators have reported that they started about 4 million votes in the hole due to the usual GOP election stealing practices. Now democrats have become targets of that disgust because of their refusal to deal with these slime, preferring instead to enable, accommodate and sanction every single outrage perpetrated by the administration, the latest being Ms. Nancy's cave-in on Iraq occupation funding.

Paraphrasing: "Ooops! I didn't really mean it when I said this is a take it or leave it bill. Just sucking up to the voters and trying to get reelected. But it's back to business as usual now. We'll work together and make sure there are no strings attached by saying the money's for Afghanistan, and then you can just reroute it wherever you want it to go. Maybe Iran might be nice. Want any more help? I'm all ears. And impeachment will never, ever be on the table, so don't let that concern you."

See anything grossly incorrect about that characterization?

So what's the worst thing that could happen if the "leadership" actually decides to lead on impeachment and let HR 333 out of committee? It fails to get enough votes in the House to launch impeachment hearings. But that seems less likely than this scenario...

By the time Conyers' committee gets through accumulating evidence, hearing testimony and compelling statements from hostile witnesses -- who can't hide behind executive privilege in impeachment proceedings -- the case they present to the House, and to the public via some mass media outlets (CNN and Fux excepted), should be so compelling that voting against the articles could be political suicide. And if there's even a remote possibility of that, watch the votes magically materialize.

Same in the Senate. Bush and Cheney are pure poison and voters aren't likely to forgive BushCo enablers of either party the next time they stand for office.

So the downside is minimal and will be quickly forgotten. The upside is preempting WW III and installation of a national security state. I'd say that's probably worth the political risk, since the real risks to this country, and to the entire planet, if they're left free to pursue whatever insanity they're hatching this very minute far outweigh concerns over Ms. Nancy's political prospects for 2008.

So how about just going for it? They all know it's the right thing to do, and their oaths of office compel them to protect the Constitution against assaults from without and within. As the ARG poll notes: 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

Sounds like a decent start, considering that those 54 percent have never even heard a peep from corporate media that would lead them to draw that conclusion. If anything, they've watched Russert sanction the Dickster's lies at every possible opportunity.


wp

[GOTV]

74. Polls in support of impeachment are few and far between....

... I've noticed the media's seeming reluctance to poll on impeachment now that Dems control congress. It's easy to get all conspiratorial but there have been some and they are consistent from the year before. Impeachment support ranges between 1/3 and 2/5 depending on the question and recent news events.

> compelling statements from hostile witnesses -- who can't
> hide behind executive privilege in impeachment proceedings

I've seen that claim made several times but never with any reference. I don't believe the administration is under any more of an obligation to participate in impeachment proceedings that they are obligated to obey a subpoena. I would have thought a subpoena was a lock but, I guess not.

[fascisthunter]

81. Only According to You

[GOTV]

83. Only to everyone here. The whole lot of you haven't been able to produce half of the polls I did..

If they're not few and far between why can't you match my count?

I wish you WERE right but, you're not.

[fascisthunter]

87. Now I Know You are Delluded

"Only to everyone here"

Now you claim to know what everyone hear believes. Wow.... classic

Those polls you CHOSE really have gone to your head. A CONSERVATIVE POLLING OUTFIT> LOL.

I'll stick to what I'm hearing and seeing. I'm done with you. Notice the amount of recommends? Yeah, that right there disproves your "everybody" claim. Really bad at twisting reality.

[GOTV]

95. I know what everyone here has been able to do... post about 3 polls in support

it has nothing to do with what they believe. It's just a fact that there are very few polls in support of impeachment.

> Those polls you CHOSE really have gone to your head.
> A CONSERVATIVE POLLING OUTFIT> LOL.

I posted polls from the LA Times, ABC, Newsweek and others. They all agree.

> Notice the amount of recommends?

The number of recommends has nothing to do with what the aggregate polling says.

[Truth2Tell]

107. But I think the point of the OP

was that current polling is irrelevant. The point is that once the Grand Impeachment Show begins, the people will follow.

As you correctly noted, the polls showing support for impeachment involved hypothetical cases of proven wrongdoing by Bush/Cheney. Well, what the impeachment process would do is create those very situations. No more hypotheticals. Surely you can't doubt that evidence of wrongdoing exists?

As for the fear that a Democratic Congress can't overcome the oh-so-scary right wing media machine. It's time to get over that. This fear has paralyzed us for 7 long years. If there was ever a time to retake the hill it's now. Throw everything we have at the campaign. We'd finally have a cause the base could rally behind. And the media simply couldn't ignore what would undoubtedly be the Story of the Century.

In light of how I believe we could push opinion on this issue - the polls you cite seem pretty damn good to me.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

117. Yes, it's not mentioned often, if at all, in the corporomedia. If that word emerged a bit more

interest would perk up.

Especially if the articles were marched out clearly, as Rep. Kucinich did with the impeachment articles for Cheney.

I also agree that 1/2 out 5 with clear interest is good and has the potential to go to 3/4 out of 5 if formal proceedings began. Especially if the WH was forced to comment on the proceedings.

MKJ

[GOTV]

124. That might be true, but I suspect not...

> The point is that once the Grand Impeachment
> Show begins, the people will follow.

They'll follow the talking heads they already follow. They won't suddenly become cspan viewers. They won't be downloading transcripts. And those talking heads that mislead them will continue. They've got no reason to change.

> As for the fear that a Democratic Congress can't
> overcome the oh-so-scary right wing media machine.
> It's time to get over that.

I think there's been some shift in the media but not enough. Impeachment might just make them dig their heels in. What it won't do though is make them honestly approach the issues they've never honestly approached before.

[warren pease]

100. Precedent comes from the Nixon tapes...

Nixon claimed executive privilege to keep his Oval Office tapes out of the hands of Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor looking into Watergate. The Supremes ruled 9-0 against him, which pretty much doomed any efforts he might have made to remain in office.

There's a reasonably good article on executive privilege from Time magazine here and the ruling itself via Findlaw.com is here.

And here, after wading through far too much legalese, is the key paragraph in UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974):

5. Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.

The only thing that bothers me about the wording above is the reference to the need for evidence trumping privilege "...in a pending criminal trial..." I don't know if impeachment proceedings equal a criminal trial for this purpose. In 1974, congress was actually investigating the Watergate burglary, and this ruling is specific to that investigation. Once the Watergate hearings led to the Oval Office, impeachment seemed inevitable until Nixon resigned. But as far as I know that precedent has never been tested to determine if it pertains to impeachment. I hope I'm either wrong about that last point, or that impeachment and a criminal trial are one and the same where this decision is concerned.

On the positive side, the Supreme Court rarely reverses itself once it's established a precedent. On the other hand, this court is so saturated with corrupt Federalist Society BushBots that anything's possible.

However, after all this legal crap is sorted out, I still maintain that impeachment would be an easy sell once the litany of "high crimes and misdemeanors" becomes part of the public consciousness. Honestly, could you imagine the reaction of the general public on finding out that they've been lied to every single day by the administration and their mass media cheerleaders? And then, forced to acknowledge that they've been utter fools, not going absolutely ballistic and wanting BushCo's heads on pikes?

Americans seem to pride themselves on being savvy about behind-the-scenes machinations -- although that's a ridiculous claim given the garbage they've swallowed uncritically for the past seven years. Imagine when that warped sense of competence is violated and they're shown to be idiots and dupes. I can't see them taking that kind of insult lightly, can you?


wp

[GOTV]

125. That phrase you quoted contains instructions on how to use exec priv ...

... to avoid impeachment. It only bars executive privilege "on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality" but allows executive privilege "on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated". So they've given Bush the language he needs to use.

Also, this is not specifically in regards to impeachment. It just says subpoena.

So, I think my point still stands, there is noting special about impeachment that forces a greater level of cooperation from the president. If we can't get the info we want now, we can't get it under an impeachment hearing either.

[warren pease]

129. I interpret that phrase differently...

So when the ruling says (emphasis mine):

"...when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.

...I think the three articles presented by Kucinich in H Res 333/799 carefully avoid the probable BushCo claim that responding to them would compromise "military or diplomatic secrets."

Please read the cites under each of the articles of impeachment to find evidence already in the public domain. There's enough out there now -- starting with Powell's shameful presentation at the UN right up to the present nonsense about the "surge" paying dividends -- to indict on these charges without any need to pry into classified documents or subpoena witnesses.

However, I suspect that any attempts at using executive privilege to hide relevant docs or to refuse access to administration officials' sworn testimony would be met with a Nixon-era response both by the public and by the DC appellate court, which is among the districts least infiltrated with Federalist Society wingnuts, and which is where this case would stop on its way to the Supremes.

Here's the meat in Article 1:

Cheney "...has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq..."

That charge is followed by a list of public statements and documents that prove Cheney lied about Iraqi WMDs and, therefore, prove the case for Article 1.

From Article 2:

Cheney "...purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq..."

Again, the charge cites numerous public statements and official documents to prove the point without need to examine additional confidential docs.

And from Article 3:

Cheney "...has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats..."

Again, this Article is followed by extensive public-domain documentation containing enough supporting information to justify a "yes" vote without the need for further evidence.

Certainly it would be great to be able to compel more documents and more testimony. The more the merrier. But the question everyone seems to be wrestling with now is how to overcome the numbers problem in both the House and Senate.

And I still maintain that voting to initiate impeachment proceedings is the way to get the numbers. Investigations and hearings and testimony uncovering even part of the BushCo cesspool would result, I'm sure, in maybe a dozen more criminal charges against various administration figures. A public recitation of these high crimes and misdemeanors -- even though corporate media would spin like a Dervish in an effort to lay blame anywhere else but in Cheney's lap -- would arouse a level of sustained rage in the public (except for the 20 or so percent who remain mindless, dysfunctional BushBots) that would steam-roll any media attempts to put happy faces on this sorry pack of pigs.

But I don't have a lawyer's trained eye. I'd sure like to hear from Constitutional lawyers on the clause that opens this post, though. Without precise legal definitions of these terms, we're just pissing up a rope. Maybe I'll start a thread asking for legal opinions someplace and see what happens.


wp

[GOTV]

134. You could be right but still, I see nothing in that that indicates impeachment is special....

... I didn't read the cites because I'm already of the opinion that Bush is guilty of crimes meriting removal from office. I don't need to have it proved.

From what you've posted it seems to me that if we wanted to get info out of the administration we need not invoke impeachment.

> And I still maintain that voting to initiate
> impeachment proceedings is the way to get the numbers.

I'm skeptical but it's not something we can really prove. However, while we can chat about it, and speculate and try to convince each other with little consequence if we're wrong, for our representatives it's could cost them their jobs to be wrong. I can sympathize with their plight when they know what their loudest supporters want but they see what the polls say as well.

[warren pease]

140. Yeah, and without input from Con law experts...

... we're just pissing in the wind, as they say.

I agree we can't prove that initiating impeachment proceedings would produce the required numbers. However, we do have recent history as a guide and as grounds for speculation.

Back in '74 mass media was almost as co-opted as it is now. The current monopolies had yet to form, but the conservative tilt was very real -- largely because Agnew managed to create and define what he called "the liberal media," which sent them all scurrying to prove that they were unbiased by, of course, running to the right, where they've remained ever since.

Mass media wouldn't touch Watergate until the Post scooped the competition for months and finally compelled the rest of the slugs to cover it. And even then, coverage was half-hearted for maybe a year, until early '76 when Nixon's involvement was so obvious that impeachment was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

But once they did begin to cover Watergate, despite acting as meek as they do today, the public woke up pretty quickly. And part of regaining consciousness involved badgering their Reps and Senators continuously with a torrent of faxes, letters and phone calls demanding investigations -- first into Watergate and then into every other area of the Nixon administration's behavior.

Remember too that in 1974, Nixon was losing popularity but had yet to become heartily despised by a significant percentage of the electorate, even though Watergate had begun to morph from a low-grade burglary into a sordid tale of low crimes in high places.

And even when the whole thing snowballed into the Congressional hearings, Nixon's approval numbers weren't nearly as bad as Cheney's are now. Nixon, to my knowledge, never came close to hitting a 9 percent approval rating, which is Cheney's number last I looked.

So, to sum up, we need a working definition of the limits on executive privilege as described in United States vs. Nixon.

We have no idea if "the numbers" would improve in favor of impeachment if, in fact, Conyers would let H Res 333 out of committee and Pelosi would let it come to the floor. History suggests that they would if the messages were managed correctly and media spin effectively countered. However, democrats are notoriously inept at those very things and might very well bury themselves under their own incompetence.

Mass media was nearly as bent to the right then as it is now, although they still seemed to mind getting scooped back then, whereas they don't seem to care these days that they're getting scooped daily by media from the entire rest of the planet, so it's impossible to predict whether they'd even cover impeachment, much less make it a top story.

Finally, Nixon's disapproval numbers never came close to Cheney's, which suggests that a Congress with a roughly 15 percent approval rating should be able to impeach a snarling reptile with a 9 percent approval rating without encountering much disfavor from the public.

Personally, I think they need to go for it because a) Americans won't vote for wimps and cowards, which is how they're seen these days, and they could actually wind up in the minority again if they aren't careful about licking BushCo's boots in public; b) there's that pesky Constitution and their own oaths of office, which compel them to take action against domestic enemies; and c) revenge can be sweet and, after suffering like battered wives for six years, you'd think they'd be more than ready to strike back at these bastards.

If those aren't good enough reasons -- along with the five I listed in a previous post on this thread -- I don't know what could be. Turley says house democratic leadership has made a deal not to impeach in return for some undefined BushCo's concession; maybe they've promised not to blow up the world. I think democrats need to realize they're not dealing with honorable men and stop treating them as if they've ever kept a promise they didn't want to keep. If that's true, then they're even more reprehensible than I previously thought. If it's not, then why aren't they doing their jobs?

I don't get it, but then I don't get a lot of things about Amerika v2.0

wp

[earth mom]

150. The polls aren't being done because the pollsters REFUSE to do them. Seem my post #146.

Not that it would convince you though. :eyes:

[onenote]

136. the latest arg poll shows a lack of interest in impeachment

http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/

Only 34 percent think chimpy should be impeached and removed from office. The rest either think he hasn't done anything wrong; that he's abused his powers but his actions don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses; or that he's committed impeachable offenses but still shouldn't be impeached.
Even 50 percent of the Democrats in this poll don't think chimpy should be impeached (and 50 percent do think he should be impeached).

The sentiment for impeaching and removing cheney is stronger, particularly among Democrats, but still falls short of 50 percent in favor overall.

[GOTV]

141. Unfortunate but true. More unfortunate is the number of posters who refuse to admit this problem...

... They insist the facts are otherwise and then get very angry when reality does not conform.

They think congress is against them so they attack congress when the problem is their friends, family, neighbors and co-workers who just don't understand the damage Bush is doing.

[yodermon]

15. only because the media, to date, has not given a full airing of the crimes of this

administration.

They are "not interested" out of ignorance.

That said, about 43% of people *are* interested in impeachment, in spite of the media lockdown.
That number would increase with the full airing of the facts.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

[GOTV]

17. Ok, you've given a reason for the apathy - but the apathy is still real....

... and unless that can be broken the impeachment will not happen.

Do you make your case outside of bulletin boards like this where we already all agree that Busch/Cheney should be impeached?

[yodermon]

25. of course I do.

You've got a chicken-or-egg question here. The media shape public opinion. They tell the public what to think *about*. Since they won't talk about impeachment, or the plethora of reasons for impeachment, then the public will naturally seem "apathetic" to the issue.

If the House were to *actually hold impeachment hearings*, then the media would be forced to cover it, and as the facts are broadcast, public sentiment for impeachment and conviction will increase.

Conyers & Pelosi know this. The real reason they are not pursuing it is because they want GWB fully ensconced in the white house for the entirety of the 2008 election cycle, to be used as a punching bag. This is fine, i guess, provided that whichever Democrat wins the WH will, in fact, pursue indictments against this bunch after they're out of power.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Maybe, maybe not

the media would also cover all the Republican defenses of Bush.

I just haven't seen any reason at all to believe that any Republicans would vote to convict him.

[GOTV]

34. Tme media would be forced to cover it in the same way the covered the original crimes....

.... with the same effect. People won't know who to believe, they'll lose interest, and they'll blame the whole lot.

[fascisthunter]

31. That's a Lie (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

35. well

GOTV provided a lot of evidence for his claim.

Do you have anything to counter his evidence other than calling him a liar?

[GOTV]

46. That's an unsubstantiated statement. Got some data? No? What a surprise!

[fascisthunter]

53. "Expected".... You Don't Know Me enough to Expect Anything

but that's the art of argument for those pushing an unpopular agenda. Yes, unpopular, but not in the corporate bubble media. You claim to have followed polls for a long time since this issue is of sooo much interest to you, yet I find polls stating the opposite just by googling. Do you suppose the trend has gone downward... really?

New Poll: Majority of Americans Support Impeachment
from 2005!!!!!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4421

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
from 2006!!!!!

I'd say the idea of impeachment is much more attractive today than ever. Good luck.

[GOTV]

59. You've got two outliers. I can see your two and raise you lots....

You said I was lying but I have a bunch of polls - you have two.

Is that it? Is that all the data you have? And from THAT you concluded I was lying?

> I'd say the idea of impeachment is much more attractive today than ever.

Yeah, you'd SAY that wouldn't you. It's easy to SAY stuff when you don't need data.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. As you said upthread

some show a SLIGHT majority in favor, depending on the question.

This shows 53% in favor, and the question is:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment".

[GOTV]

71. Right, a hypothetical....

... The question could have been

"Suppose president Bush shot and killed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on national television during the state of the union address. Should Congress consider holding him accountable through impeachment"?

I guess the percentage in favor would be much higher than 53%. And some would hold that poll up as evidence as well.

To know the actual percentage you'd have to follow up with the question "Do you think the president was truthful about the reasons for going to war". Which they didn't do but, suppose only 20% agreed. That means 80% thinks he lied. So the percentage that supports impeachment would be 53% of 80% which would be a minority.

[Usrename]

112. I understand your argument now.

You only want to concentrate on how many folks think he is guilty BEFORE the trial starts.

Any actual crimes that might be proved up are seen by you as just a hypothetical.

"Verdict first, then the trial!"

[GOTV]

126. No you don't

I'm just pointing out the logical flaw that you can't know the probability of X when you're given the a statement of the form Y => X is 53% and you don't know the probability of Y.

I suspect my previous example is clear to most, including you.

[fascisthunter]

75. Rasmussen is Very Conservative and Panders to the Right

Rasmussen has been slanted to the right for years now, so no I do not trust them, but will consider it at least.

Also,

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 16-17, 2006. N=1,020 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should 26
Should Not 69
Unsure 5

heh? How many votes? You call that data? You consider this to be conclusive? How about online polls? I've seen plenty in favor of impeachment with online polls that have over 100,000 votes, overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment. You dismiss them... or haven't even bothered to look them up. Everyone I Talk to does believe he should be impeached and some of them are life-long registered Republicans. I base my knowledge on polls and the people I have talked to. Your cherry picking of certain polls and intentionally ignoring other sources tells me you do not want impeachment.

Also, polls are only legit in trying to gauge what the public wants, but that does not exonerate the Dem leadership for not doing what's right for this country, unless you don't think it's right. Be honest.

Maybe there should be a poll that asks if congress needs a majority behind them in order to hold a criminals accountable. That would speak volumes about our congress and the state our nation is in. Stop lowering the bar.

[GOTV]

78. And yet their poll is inline with the others.

> heh? How many votes? You call that data? You consider this to be conclusive?

The aggregate of many polls is conclusive although any single poll can be an aberration

> How about online polls?

Online polls are worthless. It's a self-selected group with weak safeguards against multiple votes. Statistically worthless.

> Your cherry picking of certain polls and intentionally ignoring other sources ...

Polls are the only sources we have. I'm not cherry picking. I'm considering all the real polls in aggregate. There have been about 3 real polls that support impeachment and over a dozen opposed. If you look only at the three it is YOU who are cherry picking.

If you are adding online polls and what your friends say to those three it's even worse.

[DCKit]

10. If we impeach, then Chavez, Ahmadenijad, Lil Kim and the Terra-ists win!!!

They'll follow us home and steal our freedoms! (No, nobody knows who "they" are, it's a bogyman, but he's REAL).

How can we fight them "over there" without a strong unitary executive?

Why does America hate America?

How will war profiteers put food on their families without a constant stream of revenue?

The troops will wither and die where they stand without the pResident. He's said so on numerous occasions.

Impeachment would destroy our Xtian nation, the abortionists and GAYS would take over and Jebus won't come back to rapture the faithful and other deluded, angry white people.

All the money spent to spy on Americans will have been wasted.

What will become of DHiS (Department of Homeland inSecurity)?

AIPAC won't like us anymore and neither will the crib of Saud.

Republics might have to begin acting according to the same standards of ethics as Democrats. No more free passes? The end of our political system as we know it.

The profits of Big Oil will plummet to the level of the GNP of Japan. How could we live with ourselves?

If the M$M loses the Republics, who's gonna watch their backs? Would the Democrats forget 27 years of rank abuse and embrace them with open arms, or simply open fire?

The Federal Courts would be tied up for years with actual criminal trials, they would have no time to try people for smoking a joint.

The shredded paper alone would cause an ecological disaster, not to mention the hard drives, PCs and laptops thrown into lakes, streams, rivers and bays.

Unemployment would go through roof without privatized defense. The only answer would be an Apollo style program for energy independence and everyone knows THAT wouldn't work.

******************************

I could go on and on and on, but the thread would be archived before I finished. You guys add a few.

[earth mom]

11. Of course we all know this to be true. But Congress doesn't give a damn because they're COMPLICIT.

:grr:

[GOTV]

27. Or... because the majority is not for impeachment....

... regardless of how things look on DU the larger public is not behind impeachment and congress represents them too.

[earth mom]

36. NO-the larger public is for Impeachment. The corporate media whores are controlling the info.

Stop drinking their kool aid.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. GOTV

showed poll and after poll that shows the larger public is not interested.

Your saying they are isn't evidence.

[earth mom]

43. I don't buy into polls. I listen to what people are saying on the net & in real life.

I don't need anyone giving me their carefully selected info to prove their point. Puh-leeze. It's very easy to manipulate polling info. Just ask the freepers-they are experts at it. Just look what happened with the 2004 election and how they twisted those polls all to hell.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. That's the problem

with using your own experience and anecdotes to draw larger conclusions - you're often wrong. That's why scientific polling provides better evidence.

The 2004 polls just prior to the election were all correct within the margin of error. Polling is very accurate, even when you don't like the results.

[GOTV]

45. That's hardly representative....

... so it's not surprising you come to expected outcomes that don't match the actual outcomes.

You don't want to look at polls? Fine. But don't pretend you know what the majority wants.

> I don't need anyone giving me their carefully selected info to prove their point.

This has been polled by almost everyone on both sides.


> I don't need anyone giving me their carefully selected info to prove their point.

Bullshit. The polls said 2004 would be close and it was very close.

[earth mom]

49. No-the exit polls in 2004 said that MOST people voted for Kerry.

Yet everyone jumped in and said those polls were wrong for first time ever when * stole the election for the second time.

So excuse me if I don't jump on your bandwagon when I can see with my own eyes how they're gaming the system with all these polls.


p.s. Why in the hell should I believe you?

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Exit polls

are a different animal. But nonetheless, they were very close to the actual results. It was a very close election. What was wrong were the projections.

[earth mom]

55. The election was STOLEN. It was NOT close. The disinfo you're peddling is sickening.

Sounds like freeperville. :puke:

[MonkeyFunk]

56. How far off were the exit polls

from the actual results?

You just keep saying things without backing them up.

[earth mom]

58. Look it up yourself if it's so important to you. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

64. I don't need to

I know they were very close to the actual outcome.

You seem to be stating that they were not, and I was wondering if you could provide some evidence of that.

[GOTV]

62. There are no exit polls for impeachment....

... and traditional polls said the election would be a toss up

[redqueen]

13. Johnathan Turley says that House Dems have PROMISED not to hold impeachment hearings.

Dunno why he'd lie... and the evidence - especially the way they've ignored the public's call for impeachment - seems to support the claim.

[onenote]

137. and turley knows this how?

[redqueen]

142. You'd have to ask him. (nt)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. Already recommended.

:kick:

[Imagevision]

29. Allowing Bush to walk scot free without impeachment is the same as allowing

a murderer to go free.

[Yukari Yakumo]

32. Your point being?

What's the point of a trial if we already know that half of the jury is going to be some of the defendants best friends?

[earth mom]

41. Wow-do you even understand The Constitution?

Because Congress really doesn't have a choice here-they are willfully breaking the law and it's up to the people to kick their a$$es into gear on this. The corporate media whores are working overtime peddling disinfo so that it looks like Congress is powerless and Impeachment isn't worth their trouble. It's all a bunch of stinking bullshit.

Washington DC is just about one of the most corrupt places-The Wild West as one DC insider put it-on the planet.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. That's just wrong

impeachment is entirely optional. Nothing in the constitution compels it.

[earth mom]

48. Congress SWORE an OATH to uphold the Constitution. They have broken that Oath.

From The Constitution of the United States of America:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Now are you saying that none of these crimes: treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by * & Cheney? C'mon now. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

52. Treason?

No, not as defined by the constitution itself.

Bribery? I haven't seen evidence of that.

Other high crimes and misdemeanors? Sure. But you have to prove them.

Which person committed which crime on which day? You need clear, compelling evidence, AND the crimes and evidence have to be strong enough to convince 18 Republican senators to vote for conviction.

So far, I've seen nothing that would cause that to happen.

And no, taking the Oath of Office does not compel them to impeach, since the constitution itself does not require impeachment, under any circumstances.

[Usrename]

108. You're kidding, right?

You don't think the outing of Valerie Plame was the most insidious form of treason?

And you really don't think that the commutation of Libby's sentence was a quid pro quo?

What planet are you on?

[MonkeyFunk]

143. No

the outing of Plame was not treason, as defined by the constitution. Not everything that hurts the country is treason. Treason consists, effectively, of taking up arms against the United States, or joining with our enemies to hurt America.

That a side-effect of the outing of Plame could have possibly helped our enemies doesn't rise to treason. But there might well be lesser charges that it violated.

Again, a quid-pro-quo is not bribery. Bush wasn't given money in order to commute Libby's sentence. But, again, there's a possibility that a lesser crime was committed (obstruction of justice). However, given the President's power to pardon or commute is absolute, I can't see him being prosecuted for it.

I'm on Earth.

[Truth2Tell]

109. Which part of

"shall be removed from office..." do you find to be non-compulsary?

[Yukari Yakumo]

114. That an easy question to answer

And it only proves how desperate some of the "Impeach Now!!!" crowd is.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Let me explain it to you. The "shall" here means the President, et al. will be removed upon impeachment and conviction. There is nothing here that says Congress is obliged to go forward with impeachment proceedings. I'll reword this in a way that you may be able to understand.

Section 4. If the President, Vice President, or any civil officer of the United States is impeached for and convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crime and misdemeanor, then they will be removed from office.

[Truth2Tell]

131. desperate

to save our Constitution and some semblance of a future for our children, yep, you bet.

And yes, your point is correct and taken - but makes impeachment no less necessary.

[MonkeyFunk]

144. It's a flawed question

It certainly would be compulsory to remove them from office if they were impeached and convicted.

That doesn't mean it's compulsory to impeach them. It means, as it plainly reads, that IF they are impeached and convicted, THEN they must be removed from office.

[GOTV]

47. The constitution does not require impeachment under any circumstances....

... it is entirely and always a choice of congress. They can choose to pursue it when it's not justified (as in Clinton) or they may chose not to pursue it when it is justified (as in Bush) but they are the only judge of when impeachment is appropriate.

[earth mom]

51. NO-Impeachment is up to the people to require of Congress. Which we have done repeatedly.

Congress is WILLFULLY ignoring the WILL of the people.

Yup-Giving all of us the big ole middle finger.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. except

it's already been demonstrated that the "will of the people" is not to impeach.

[earth mom]

57. Impeachment is the will of the people. It's just not the will of the freepers. nt

[GOTV]

60. The evidence says that the people's will is to oppose impeachment...

... but I'm sure your friends are more representative.

[earth mom]

66. NO-the evidence says the people support Impeachment of the criminals in office. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

69. What evidence is that?

you haven't provided any.

[Truth2Tell]

111. How about Bush standing in front of TV cameras

and acknowledging that he authorized wiretapping without warrants of U.S. citizens? That was a direct acknowledgment of a violation of FISA. He may want to quibble about the law, but the facts are fully established in that instance. Several others are equally clear. All that's required of Congress in those instances is a finding of Law - a cursory investigation - designed to bring the public along - would suffice to establish the "proof."

It's difficult to even take you seriously or even believe you're discussing this in good faith when you suggest there's no "proof" of wrongdoing by Bush/Cheney. Really.

[GOTV]

127. We were talking about the evidence that the public wants impeachment n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

65. I'm not a freeper

by any stretch, and it weakens your argument that you have to attack me personally instead of responding to what I write.

I haven't attacked you in any way. Why so hostile?

[earth mom]

67. I didn't call you a freeper, I just stated a fact about freepers. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

70. Yes

you're very sly about how you phrase it.

Nonetheless, the hostility is unwarranted.

[earth mom]

73. Let's see...you & your tag team have been all over my posts & my hostility is unwarranted?!

:wtf:

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

102. We're having a discussion

that's how it works. You say something, I respond, you respond, etc. etc.

I haven't been hostile toward you in any way. I'm just discussing. You're the one making sly innuendo about my real loyalties and generally, just acting like a jerk.

You state opinion as fact, and then get mad when we use actual facts to disprove your point.

[earth mom]

104. I have not seen ONE fact from either or you or is that the 3 of you. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

105. Then you haven't read the thread

GOTV has posted many, many polls backing up our point. You only post your personal opinions.

[GOTV]

122. FACT: Most polls show only minority support for Bush's impeachment.

I've posted many more polls than you have in support of that fact.

[earth mom]

146. NO-The polls are NOT being done that would prove that the public wants Impeachment.

Harris Interactive Refuses to Poll on Impeachment Even for Cold Hard Cash
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23091


The American Research Group Is Refusing to Poll on Impeachment Even for Cold Hard Cash
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23292


Ipsos-Reid refuses to poll on impeachment even for cold hard cash.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23058


Pew's Putrid Excuse for Refusing to Poll on Impeachment
http://www.democrats.com/why-pew-refuses-to-poll-on-impeachment


Stick that in your pipe and smoke it since you're obviously smokin something that's screwing with your head.


It is also obvious that these companies won't do the polls because they don't want the truth to come out about just how much Impeachment is wanted and demanded by the public. Because if these polling companies were honest, unbiased and ethical with no skin in the game, they would do the goddamn polls, especially for money since they are businesses first and foremost.


BTW-The disgusting manipulation of this thread by you and your buddies is something I would expect over on freeperville. NOT on DU. Just what side you are all on? That's the question. Except I already know the answer. :puke:

[GOTV]

61. You already admitted that you have no evidence to back your claim of the people's will

[earth mom]

72. Here's an Impeachment Poll for you with 585,060 responses.

Impeachment poll from MSNBC-89% for Impeachment, 585,060 responses. There are many more pro Impeachment polls, but again, I don't need a poll to prove to me that the MAJORITY of people want Impeachment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

[GOTV]

76. OMG - an ONLINE poll! Do you know how real polling works?

NO ONE of any consequence trusts online polls. My god have you not seen all the "DU this poll" posts here and the "Freep this poll" posts there?

They're worthless.

no score!

[earth mom]

85. I know how real polling works. Don't insult me.

As I stated before I don't trust the polling-not after 2 stolen elections and 7 years of lies and blatant corruption.

The public is sick of it and the criminals in charge and it doesn't take polls and scientific data to see or understand that.



FYI-I'm like a dog with a bone about Impeachment-you are NOT going to convince me that Impeachment is not the will of the people. Because I KNOW it is.


I don't need YOU or anyone to validate what I already know to be true.

[fascisthunter]

90. Dissuading is the Intent

When the OP is about encouraging impeachment. Interesting isn't it?

[GOTV]

93. Encouraging you to find a path that will work....

... you're expecting the people's will to save you and I'm pointing out that you'll be waiting another 13 months for that if that's what you expect.

You want impeachment? You've got to convince the people. You'll get no where with congress and you'll get no where on a message board where everyone already agrees with you about the goal.

Don't believe me and fail if you must.

You can't solve a problem you don't understand. And if you think congress is knowingly acting against the will of the people, you don't understand the problem.

[fascisthunter]

106. Please Keep Your Concern for me to Yourself

I'm not interested nor do I buy your concern.

[GOTV]

128. It's not just for you but for anyone else that might be mislead reading this thread....

... so I will continue.

Following this path you will fail. And you will fail because you would not take the time to understand the problem and simply demanded a quick fix from your representative, who represents more than just you.

[earth mom]

94. Exactly-they've filled this thread with disinfo-I'm not going to sit back & let em do it. nt

[GOTV]

97. My info is all sourced n/t

[GOTV]

91. Then you knew online polls are bogus and posted one anyway, Why is that.?

No one who understands the statistical underpinning of polling would consider an online poll.

> FYI-I'm like a dog with a bone about Impeachment-you are
> NOT going to convince me that Impeachment is not the will
> of the people. Because I KNOW it is.

Lots of people think they know lots of things even though they have no evidence. That's good for you, but why try to convince others if you've got nothing?

I believe you that you will not be swayed by evidence.

[earth mom]

92. Here's a recent poll for you & there is more where this came from:

Here's a new poll from American Research Group

November 13, 2007 - Impeachment


A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.


A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president. Of the 70%, 26% (18% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 13% (9% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.



http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28680

[GOTV]

96. Did you read it? It shows only 34% support for the impeachment of Bush

Just like all the others. I'll add it to the pile.



Which one of these four statements do you agree with about President Bush:

1. President Bush has not abused his powers as president.

2. President Bush has abused his powers as president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.

3. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.

4. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.

11/12/07 #1 #2 #3 #4
All voters 36% 9% 21% 34%

[earth mom]

103. Did YOU read it? 53% for * & 61% for Cheney.

53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.

[GOTV]

121. Wrong 53% of those who think he abused his office, 34% of ALL VOTERS....

... It's in your very own post.

You have to READ this stuff people!

[onenote]

139. so here's what you've managed to prove

2/3 of voters don't want chimpy impeached and even among those who believe that he's committed impeachable offenses, only 53 think he should be impeached.

If you think that's an indication that the public is demanding impeachment you need to stop and think some more.

[Yukari Yakumo]

115. Are you stupid or somethin' son?

70% say Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers, that leaves 30% saying otherwise.

Of the 70%, 26% say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment. 18% of all voters.

30% + 18% = 48%

The number of all voters who want impeachment? 43%

48% > 43%

That is not remotely a mandate to support your argument.

[earth mom]

145. No- But are YOU stupid or somethin' son?

What part of "should be impeached and removed from office" do you and your little buddies on this thread NOT understand?

:eyes:



53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.

[onenote]

138. when did the "people" require impeachment of Congress? I must have missed that vote.

Just curious. Must have been a referndum or something that I missed. And it must have been held after the Nov 2006 elections since virtually none of the candidates running promised to pursue impeachment (or even talked about impeachment) and of the few that did, most lost (although they were such weak candidates that they would've lost anyway).

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Impeach him now

and he still walks away scot free. Even worse - he'll have been acquitted.

[porphyrian]

77. I'll kick that, anyway. -n/t

[fascisthunter]

79. How Impeachment Would Catch Fire:

by ignoring those who have an agenda to stop folks from supporting the idea.

[zorahopkins]

80. Someone Needs To Light The Fire

It is just outrageous that Bush and Cheney are still in office and still thumbing their cocaine-laden noses at the rest of us.

Someone (like all of US) needs to strike the match in order to light the fire to get them out of office -- NOW!

[Disturbed]

84. There will be no Impeachment of anyone, period!

Unless there is 100% Documented Proof of actual crimes by anyone the Dems will not
move on this. The Dems know that unless that is the case, they won't even garner enough
votes from Dems to move forward on this & certainly not any Repugs.

[zorahopkins]

88. An Unreasonable Standard

I fear you are correct when you say that "unless there is 100% Documented Proof of actual crimes by anyone the Dems will not
move on this."

But that is an unreasonable high standard to set.

Even terrible criminals can be convicted based on evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Bush has caused the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions, of people, and FOR WHAT?

To make his oil buddies richer and to feed his massive ego.

It sickens and saddens me that he will get away without being impeached.

We need to act. Now.

[GOTV]

89. Some one needs to close their browser, turn off their computer and go talk to a neighbor....

... we, here on DU, already support Bush's removal from office.

[Diamond Dave]

82. Not for me - no more bygones - look what happened this time.

They all should have been in prison over Iran/Contra -

It is way past time for IMPEACHMENT! Start the fires,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,........................ NOW!

Note to Pelosi and Conyers, if you can't open your mouths well then just say so, and then stand back and get out of the damned way!

[in_cog_ni_to]

86. GREAT piece! It's so true! Want to see a chain reaction in Congress? Start a Impeachment hearing!

K & R!

[The Stranger]

98. Pelosi and Conyers are complicit in the on going war crimes.

Indict them for conspiracy to commit war crimes.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

99. This "abuse of power" shit will NEVER END if serious consequences aren't imposed.

If anything, corruption and fraud and misappropriation and blackmail along with abuse of power will GROW!!!

[Mme. Defarge]

101. K&R!

[deacon]

113. k + r

[Senator]

116. K&R&ImpeachToUniteUsAgain

[tridim]

119. Darth Dick would resign long before it even came to a vote.

That social dynamo is a real powerful thing.

[snappyturtle]

120. K&R Thanks for bringing this article to our attention.

I agree with it one hundred percent. If "someone" in the House opened her mouth and began the impeachment process, I believe we would see a wave across the nation in support of impeachment!

edit: just missed the K&R deadline.....but it's non the less sincere!