Would someone please explain how we're going to get 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict?

[LeftCoast]

Process

The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

From the Wiki on impeachment

How can you possibly get Joe Lieberman + 15 other republicans to vote to convict?

[bryant69]

1. Three answers

It doesn't matter - the point is to hold the Bush administration accountable, not to convict; if Republicans and Lieberman vote to sustain the President they are guilty of his crimes. At least Senate Democrats will have clean hands.

The House doesn't have a choice; they are constrained by law. By the same token, if a Cop sees the mayors son breaking the law, he arrests him, even if he knows the kid will skirt. The House should do their duty and put the President on trial even if they think he'll get off.

The truth is that we don't know the depths of the Bush Depravity - we know it goes pretty deep, and in an impeachment hearing, the full fetid mess would be exposed to the American people. At that point the Senate would have no choice but to remove him from office!

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

[LeftCoast]

5. It does matter

Failure to convict means they are acquitted. No prosecutor in the land will bring a case before a jury if he or she does not feel they can win the case.

Impeachment is a political instrument. Congress is not constrained by law on this. There is no mechanism by which they are compelled to bring impeachment.

Investigations are ongoing and there is nothing preventing criminal charges being drawn up once Bush/Cheney are out of office.

[endarkenment]

24. "Investigations are ongoing " actually investigations are going nowhere.

At least with an actual impeachment process, hiding behind executive privilege would be more difficult.

[LeftCoast]

44. Still doesn't get us 66 votes

:shrug:

[Bandit]

56. There have been two Presidents Impeached in our history

Neither have been removed from office but that does not mean they will not be remembered as being Impeached by the Representatives of the American people. History will record the process and also the disapproval of the American people. If the American people do not disapprove of their behavior then it will be continued.The only way to register officially the attitude of the people is through our Representatives which means Impeachment..

[Selatius]

10. I hate to split hairs, but the Constitution does not compell Congress to impeach.

"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."

The operative word is "shall," not "must." Also, "other high crimes and misdemeanors" was made intentionally vague to give Congress discretionary power to pursue impeachment or not given the potential for new and future categories of crime.

[kentuck]

2. Why do we have to convict?

Just impeach the mofo already.

[LeftCoast]

7. See post #5

[L. Coyote]

3. SIMPLE: Too many felonies to not convict. Building a case is required. Once that is done

then conviction follows. The work continues, quietly in the background, charges are mounting with recent revelations. But Bush and Cheney are very carefully insulated by lawyers and minions, just like Reagan and Bush during the explicit criminality of Iran-Contra. This Junta has deep experience in secret government criminality and how to keep the leaders distant from the crimes. However, this time the proof of conspiracy has been found.

[LeftCoast]

14. Faith based reasoning

And we don't need to take it on faith. Investigations are going on now. Despite all that's been revealed so far the republicans in the Senate look no more likely to convict now than they did a year ago. They got trounced in '06. Their polling is in the toilet. Their President is a blatant liar. Yet they still stick together. They have not done a single thing to make me believe for an instant that they would change their pattern of behavior for impeachment. In fact, there is far, far more incentive for them to oppose it with every ounce of political capital they have.

[rudy23]

4. Once the crimes are outlined, it will be too politically unpopular not to convict

Besides--exposure is more important than conviction.

These aren't the kind of crimes that cause supporters to "rally around" the accused.

[LeftCoast]

8. Investigations are going on now

They are already being exposed. If bush is not convicted then he will be exonerated.

[rudy23]

64. We can't enforce those investigations because of "executive privilege"

That wouldn't be the case in an impeachment trial.

How does anyone know he will be exonerated if not convicted? These aren't the same circumstances as the Clinton impeachment, not by a long shot.

[KansDem]

6. Well, you might start by showing the video of children being raped at Abu Ghraib...

...as reported by Seymour Hersh.

Then you could proceed by showing evidence of all the other crimes committed by this administration.

Somehow, after showing tapes with the child raping and hearing the screams as depicted by Mr. Hersh, I doubt if there would be very many Senators still supporting Bush...

edited for spelling...

[LeftCoast]

9. Nothing preventing that from being shown now

Assuming the tapes still exist.

[KansDem]

15. The tapes were ordered to be released after an ACLU lawsuit...

But the DOD refused to release them.

I don't know what can be done now...it appears the DOD has defied a court order.

Hell, I'd go in a get the fucking tapes myself if I just knew where they were being kept and was somewhat assured I wouldn't be taken off at the knees by some sharpshooter in the employ of BushCo...

[LeftCoast]

26. It's pretty clear that investigations are ongoing

I think if the tapes still exist they'll turn up. Hope I'm not being overly optimistic, but I do believe that. Too many people are interested in this now.

[SoCalDem]

11. January 22, 2008, appoint a special prosecutor..charge them all THEN

no pardoning gonna happen AFTER *²'s gone :)

Tar and feather them all, and perhaps, prevent the return of some of the younger ones...years down the road..

[LeftCoast]

16. I think that's exactly the path to take

I would LOVE to see the SOB's impeached but they'll never be convicted by this Senate.

[TahitiNut]

12. Put two million angry citizens in the streets of D.C. during the proceedings.

When push comes to shove, I really don't give a shit how the "best corporate shills money can buy" vote ... it'd be infinitely better to HAVE such a vote than to repeately hear cowardly apologetics for NOT pressing for impeachment. At least the targets for tar and feathers would identify themselves with a 'Nay' vote.

[LeftCoast]

20. That sure stopped the Iraq War!

And it still doesn't get us to 2/3rds.

[demnan]

13. Look at Nixon

The threat of impeachment caused him to resign in shame. Clinton didn't because nobody was going to convict on what they had on Clinton.

We could get these bastards out if we wanted to. The Republicans would ultimately force them to leave!

but no, we'll just sit back and watch the Constitution be shat on.

[LeftCoast]

18. "The Republicans would ultimately force them to leave!"

How? How would that happen?

[EstimatedProphet]

21. Yeah, Nixon resigned...

AFTER the investigations made it very clear he was guilty! People were claiming he was guilty for 2 years previous to that!

[Javaman]

17. Call me crazy, but isn't there an investigation first?

it's only when there is enough evidence presented by the investigation that the articles of impeachment are voted on.

[LeftCoast]

19. There are investigations going on now

They haven't changed any republican minds yet.

Again though...how do we get 2/3?

[magellan]

28. They aren't impeachment investigations

Whole other ball of wax. Just saying.

[Javaman]

31. exactly. that's what I thought...

there has to be an investigation into impeachment allegations. Then the findings are presented to the house. Then it's at that time they vote.

Am I correct in my train of logic?

[magellan]

37. Yes. Impeachment is a process

The House's job is to decide whether that process ever starts. A resolution is tabled (like Kucinich's HR333) and voted on. (Or left to die in committee like was done with HR333.) If it passes, the House begins gathering evidence in support of the charges in the resolution and conducts investigation hearings with witnesses. When that concludes they vote on whether to send a recommendation to impeach to the Senate, who look at all the evidence and decide whether to impeach or not.

I may be missing bits out but that's the essence of it.

[Javaman]

58. Thanks for the clarification. :) nt

[LeftCoast]

47. There are some differences. Not enough to get us 66 votes though

Nobody's been able to show how so far anyway.

[magellan]

57. How can anyone say how many votes it'll get or not

...when the damn investigation hasn't even been started yet?

Don't you think impeachment proceedings are proper, and that the media will certainly televise them because they aren't going to let those ratings get away from them, resulting in an informed public that will PRESS its elected officials for impeachment once all the evidence starts pouring out?

[endarkenment]

29. Not really, but keep repeating that, it is amusing.

Haven't you noticed that all those investigations have gone exactly nowhere?

[LeftCoast]

48. And that makes you think impeachment will succeed?

Interesting logic.

[endarkenment]

50. No it makes your argument concerning ongoing investiations false.

I thought that was clear.

[LeftCoast]

54. We're just going to have to disagree here then

[madokie]

22. innocent until found guilty is the american way of law

going into a impeachment proceeding or any trial for that matter, only after the 'votes' are counted and confirmed to be is not conducive to our way of justice. I find fault with the question you ask myself.

[LeftCoast]

32. Prosecutors don't send cases to trial they don't feel they can win

We have very strong evidence through a long record of behavior as to how intractable the republicans in the Senate will be. They have shown time and time again that there is no evidence or argument which matters to them when it comes to protecting themselves.

Nobody on this thread has yet been able to show me how we get 15 of them to vote to convict. Everyone just sorta say's we'll see when we get there. Well, I'm looking now and I don't see very much chance. Worse, I see the consequences of losing that vote and I don't like them.

[madokie]

41. I totally disagree with you

I also think talk about the 'votes' is counter productive at this juncture. we must impeach for the precedent that that will be set if we don't

[LeftCoast]

43. We didn't impeach Reagan for Iran Contra

I really think that's wrong. It didn't set a precedent though and neither does this.

What this would do is let the republicans trumpet to the world that bush was found not guilty.

[madokie]

55. whatever, two wrongs make a right everyone knows that, huh

[LeftCoast]

61. We still don't have 66 votes

Whether it's a pile o' shit or not unfortunately doesn't effect that.

[OzarkDem]

23. Have hearings, put it in front of the public

let them put the pressure on their members of Congress. It will happen.

[LeftCoast]

34. More faith based reasoning

Nobody can show me the 15 republicans because they're not there.

[OzarkDem]

66. Its Democracy, its the Constitution, its the process

Its not easy, it requires work. But the Constitution is worth defending.

[warren pease]

25. Consider that their sole loyalty is to their reelection...

If Pelosi allowed impeachment to go forward by giving Conyers the OK, the process of compiling evidence, compelling testimony and subpoenaing hostile witnesses would begin. That's how any prosecution builds a case; you don't go into a criminal investigation with a pre-ordained conclusion and cherry pick only the facts that support the theory of the crime. I'll leave that kind of phony investigation to the 9/11 Commission.

Successful investigators do just the opposite; develop theories and test them against the facts, then readjust to fit the evidence, rinse and repeat until satisfied that they're going after the actual bad guys.

If this investigation turns up evidence of impeachable offenses, then the House Judiciary Committee passes the articles of impeachment and presents its case to the full House. This is equivalent to a DA presenting a case to a grand jury. The full House (the grand jury) then decides whether to indict. If it doesn't, everybody goes home and resumes business as usual. If it approves the articles, they are presented to the Senate and the accused gets a trial date.

Keep in mind that, in this case, the evidence would have to be absolutely overwhelming to get this particular House -- with its reluctant leadership, its scared rookies, its blue dog GOP-lite contingent -- to vote in favor of impeachment for anyone in this particular administration. I don't exactly know why, but they've been given a seven-year pass and the House leadership seems intent on extending it to eight years.

And since that's the case, the evidence would have to be so ugly that its combined weight left them no other option when dealing with the court of public opinion. Which is to say, once the average politically apathetic, undereducated, ill-informed American chowderhead gets a clue what these criminals have been up to for the past seven years, the peasants would show up at local congressional offices with torches lit and pitchforks sharpened. And woe betide any member who voted nay on the articles.

So it's passed to the Senate with this massive public fury as a backdrop. What do you think our fine Solons are going to do? Keep in mind that their careers are the only things they believe in anymore, and that a vote for BushCo may well screw up their reelection plans.

Somehow, I think if the process were allowed to work and not stymied at every turn in some bizarre -- and I suspect unsuccessful -- attempt to boost democratic chances in 2008, impeachment would take care of itself. Lieberman wouldn't vote to convict Bush or Cheney if you held a gun to his mother's head, but he's known loon and an international embarrassment anyway. I think those missing votes would materialize simply because self-interest would compel these amoral twits to be on the winning side. And with a little push from the House impeachment, conviction and removal from office would, in fact, be the winning side.

So that's my opinion. Do you think otherwise and, if so, why?


wp

[LeftCoast]

39. I do think otherwise

First, as I've pointed out a couple of times already, prosecutors don't bring cases to trial unless they feel they can win them. But we need to be careful comparing this to a criminal trial. In this case, we already know the makeup of the jury and we also know that the jury is highly biased. There exists a long record of their behavior and actions running counter to all reason or evidence.

The investigations argument is a pretty good one. The only thing is that investigations are going on right now. We don't need impeachment for them.

As far as the Senate republicans and their political motivations. Clearly we're both in the realm of speculation here, but to me it seems more likely that the republicans would circle the wagons if impeachment were to reach the Senate. I think if they can go against such strong public sentiment about the war, it's a pretty good indicator how they would act in case of impeachment. Facts don't matter to these people. Once through the spin cycle they'll rally to their base and try to weather the storm. They're already going to lose badly in '08. Most of them know it. Think what a boat anchor it will be for the party if they went into the '08 election with a recently impeached president in the voter's minds?

[warren pease]

60. I think we're fairly close, but a few counterpoints...

This is probably going to be a bit long, so apologies out front.

It's true that prosecutors don't tend to bring cases to trial unless they think they can win them, although there are occasional exceptions. But when there's doubt out front, they rely on investigators to tighten up the case. They fill in the blanks and tie up the loose ends, which makes it much tougher for a defense attorney to poke holes in the DA's version of the story.

And yes, people get railroaded all the time, ADAs are ambitious and will overlook details that point away from their prime suspect, investigators miss stuff and so forth. I don't think those concerns apply in this case, though.

As to the ongoing investigations: they're stymied by the white house's insistence on using executive privilege to prevent administration witnesses from complying with subpoenas. I'm told that executive privilege doesn't apply to impeachment proceedings, which would be one more very good reason to go the impeachment route, but I've yet to confirm that point.

The closest I can get is some language in US v Nixon, the Supreme Court ruling that denied him executive privilege protection against having to release the oval office tapes, which is what ultimately brought him down and forced his resignation. The case is here if you want to read through it, and the language I think applies is:

"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."

Two things bother me about the wording above. First 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.

Second, re the phrase "...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..."

It seems possible that BushCo could use the "military or diplomatic secrets" dodge to claim executive privilege covering papers and electronic communications, and to prevent subpoenaed witnesses from testifying under oath. Again, legal expertise required.

I agree that the Senate republicans are beneath contempt, but I still maintain that, rather than circling the wagons on behalf of the most unpopular administration in recent history, they'd jump like proverbial rats off a sinking ship in a headlong rush to distance themselves from BushCo. Granted they've got courage of hamsters and the morals of child molesters, but they're all about self-preservation and reelection. I doubt they're going to do anything to risk their careers to support BushCo.

Finally, I don't get your point about impeachment being a boat anchor going into the 2008 elections. Do you mean if impeachment fails, or the act itself, no matter the outcome?

And before typists cramp sets in...


wp

[LeftCoast]

62. I think we are pretty close on several of these points

I've heard others mention the executive privilege argument. I think it's one of the strongest arguments in favor of impeachment actually. From what I can recall though, I think you're correct in believing that there is some legal wrangling over that. In any case I think that given the short time left Bush would simply run out the clock. This brings up an interesting question though. I wonder what sort of executive privilege exists after a president has left office? I want to see bush, et al. tried in a court of law, but if he can somehow maintain carte blanche executive privilege that might cause a problem with my solution.

What I meant about impeachment being a boat anchor was that if the bush was impeached and found convicted, I think it would be like a boat anchor around the neck of the republicans. Republicans got hammered after Watergate even though Nixon resigned.

[warren pease]

65. I think re executive privilege...

...that once he's no longer the chief executive of this country (and I shudder just typing those words) he can no longer claim executive privilege. So I think they can be criminally liable as long as statutes of limitations don't elapse, and that it's then open season on any witnesses they're currently hiding behind executive privilege.

And I also know there's an international movement afoot -- possibly several of them -- to bring these bastards to trial at The Hague on war crimes charges that include torture, invading and occupying a non-threatening sovereign country, lying to the UN about Iraqi threats and so forth.

If you remember a month or so ago, Rumsfeld was nearly arrested in Paris on war crimes charges and had to be spirited out of the country -- via the US embassy and a private jet -- before they could grab him up.

I think these are the kinds of life experiences the entire roster of BushCo rat bastards can look forward to for the rest of their days. If they leave the country, they'll be immediately subject to arrest.

Hell, some aggrieved country could just hire a group of private mercs, who could pull an Eichmann-style "snatch and go" job on any of them, at any time, and the next thing they'd remember would be waking up in a cell in The Netherlands.

I'd like to see them arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned right here, because that would begin to restore some of our national honor in the eyes of the world. But I doubt any person or group in the US is going to go up against the Bush Crime Family. They make the legendary New York families look like pimps and break-in artists, and their potential for lethal retaliation is well known.

Finally, thanks for the clarification on the impeachment/conviction/GOP statement. It makes much more sense that way.


wp

[rateyes]

27. How will we get ANY votes to convict...

if we don't put the bastards on trial through impeachment?

A baseball player cannot hit a home run unless that player stands in the batter's box and swings at a pitch. Now, if one does that, he might strike out. He might hit into a double play. He might get a single, a double, or a triple rather than a home run.

But, one thing is for sure: Sucess does not come without EFFORT.

And, IMO, even if impeachment doesn't bring the home run of conviction...it will be worth the effort to show that we Democrats are unafraid of at least trying to hold criminals accountable for their crimes.

[endarkenment]

30. 66 votes. nt.

[LeftCoast]

33. 51 + 15 right?

The Dems + Lieberman should equal 51 which leaves another 15 republicans we'd need. Or is my math off somewhere? It's almost my bedtime.

[endarkenment]

49. correct.

You answered your own question in your op, you just don't think that there is any evidence that would sway 16 people to vote to convict. I disagree. I think we at least deserve to have the case aired and let the chips fall where they may. There were not enough votes to convict Nixon either, not at first, but then as the evidence mounted votes changed, Nixon was compelled to resign.

Then of course a deal was cut and the truth was never really brought to light.

[LeftCoast]

53. No no no

"you just don't think that there is any evidence that would sway 16 people to vote to convict"

No - I didn't say that. I think there's enough evidence out there now that if they were to be tried in a court, a jury would convict them. What I'm saying is, I don't think there is any amount of evidence or argument that could sway 16 republicans to vote to convict bush.

[endarkenment]

59. And I pointed out that Nixon started out the same way. nt.

[LeftCoast]

63. If people could point to any sort of evidence that the current crop of republicans

would actually vote the right way on this I'd support impeachment. The problem is, I have seen this group of republicans go against massive public protest to ram through a war. I've seen them go against all evidence to continue to deny global warming. We've all watched as they continue to block meaningful legislation on withdrawal from Iraq. We've seen them block sound energy policy. I could go on and on. What I haven't seen is even one of them step up and do the right thing when it mattered.

Everyone is so gung-ho on this whole impeachment thing but nobody has so far been able to provide a shred of evidence to encourage me that we *might* have even a possibility of success. The disconnect is so apparent to me but I'm the only one who sees it I guess. I dunno.

[zbdent]

35. 70 percent of the Republican Senators drop dead of a heart attack?

Then we may have a chance ... with the reduced numbers in the Senate ...

I'm holding out for a War Crimes Court / Crimes Against Humanity hearing in 2009 ...

[rateyes]

36. By impeaching the bastards and putting them on trial. nt

[China_cat]

38. How can you possibly get Joe Lieberman + 15 other republicans to vote to convict?

Find out where Bush is holding their family members and free them.

[LeftCoast]

40. LOL - Well, then you might have a chance

:)

[Occam Bandage]

42. But once we raise awareness, then awareness will be raised! And once that happens,

the Republicans will vote to hand their party the greatest political defeat in American history, because they don't want to be seen as supporting an unpopular President with criminal policies. Obviously.

:eyes:

[mmonk]

45. These historical crimes need to go on record

and the constitutiona needs some defense. Enemies of the constitution are enemies of my constitutional rights (and thus my safety) and the constitutional rights of my children and thus they are my enemy, no exceptions from any party or country or group or religion or whatever. If one cannot make a stand on issues of right vs. wrong, then they are wrong by default.

[LeftCoast]

51. How is the Constitution defended if we can't convict them?

We can also right many of these wrongs by bringing them to trial after the election.

[lame54]

46. An Impeachment investigation will bring out there crimes and...

when republican senators refuse to vote to convict - after every devious and immoral act has been laid bare - they will sink like stones in the next several elections
the excuse the dems give for not impeaching is that they mey lose the election if they do is B.S.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow

[LeftCoast]

52. And we're just supposed to take this on faith?

Because most of the evidence shows that none of that will occur. Republicans are already going to lose in '08. They'd lose even worse if they had a convicted president hanging around them like a dead albatross.