It’s still not a ‘fringe’ idea

So 28 + 23 = 51% of all Americans say it should be on the agenda, whether it’s top or lower priority.

Hmm… isn’t 51% like, I don’t know, a majority?

Rather than rebut Republican claims that Democrats will “go wild” with impeachment by saying, “No we won’t” (as Pelosi did on 60 Minutes), I’d rather see Republicans make the argument why we shouldn’t. As it is, they seem to be applying their lesson of 1998 to this election: people don’t like impeachments; therefore, tarring your opponents as impeachers will get you elected. It totally avoids the substance of the debate.

Hmm… isn’t 51% like, I don’t know, a majority?

Not only that, it’s also a mandate.

I understand why Democrats would distance themselves from impeachment, although I disagree. What I’d like to hear though is their ideas of holding Bush and Cheney accountable in any meaningful way in light of the administrations flagrant contempt for the law. If you’re not going to remove Bush and Cheney from office, how are you going to stop them for the next two years?

Better a wild Democratic than a dead-fish Republican congress.

I say hamstring ShrubCo for the next two years then hand them over to an international war crimes tribunal tied up with pretty hemp bows as a hint. We can get on with undoing the crap they’ve done and tune in for the sentencing.

A trip to the Hauge would be far more appropriate and go a long way to regaining the world’s respect and trust. I know they’ve been wiping their asses on the Constitution but the US can (and I think will) recover from that pretty quickly. If the figthing stopped today, Iraq would still be a wreck for decades.

The thing about Iraq is that we can just come home. Just leave. They don’t know any more about the long term effects of doing that than they have known anything else.

They wring their hands that leaving Iraq would be a disaster, but they also wrang their hands and claimed that leaving Saddam in place would cause disaster.

Disaster has happened already.

For those in doubt – Bush is definitely impeachable. He’s even admitted commission of a felony. Bush has admitted that he ordered warrantless wiretaps. He claims that he is allowed to, under the theory of the unitary executive. However, Title 50 U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, § 1809 says:
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . . an offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

That’s for each wiretap. 1,000 wiretaps = 1,000 counts = 5,000 years in prison and a $10,000,000.00 fine. Such a pattern of felonious conduct is the very definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. And notice, there is no intent language in the statute – it does not require mens re – it is aimed ONLY at government employees, and it says: if you wiretap without a warrant – you are guilty!

Setting aside the questions of whether Bush and/or Cheney have already committed acts deserving of impeachment (I’m agnostic leaning to likely on that) or whether impeachment would be a positive strategic political move (I’m agnostic leaning to negative on that), I’m convinced that if the Dems win one or both chambers, Bush/Cheney will actively provoke a Constitutional crisis necessitating their impeachment.

The first investigation spearheaded by a majority-backed Henry Waxman will be resisted tooth and nail by Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez — resisted to and beyond the point of un-Constitutional contempt of Congress and administrative overreach.

The Dems are absolutely correct right now to STFU regarding impeachment — because Bush will be braiding his own rope.

#10 Dale, as unpopular and reviled as Bush/Cheney are these days, I think there would be riots in the streets if Congress impeached them both and annointed one of their own as president. While that may be the fantasy of many at this point in Bush’s tenure, that is a clear, Clear, CLEAR violation of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. You cannot run a democracy when the legislature controls the presidency.

I found a fascinating article on the subject, Fools, Drunkards, & Presidential Succession. While we’ve never been in much of a crisis regarding presidential succession, we’ve come close quite a few times (i.e. close as in, if one person died, we’d have some problems).

At any rate, if by “no downside”, you mean, “destroying the separation of powers”, then you are correct. 🙂 If the Democrats attempted to do that, then they can forget winning the House, the Senate, or the White House for the next 20+ years.

I agree with those who say Cheney should be impeached, at least be the first to be impeached. This is what happened with Spiro Agnew before Nixon, and it was based on financial misdealings. Cheney is loaded with those. There may not be enough votes to convict in the Senate, but hearings can bring enough pressure to force a resignation. Same thing with Bush afterwards. I don’t fault Pelosi for talking down impeachments before the election because the GOP would use that as a campaign issue, but I’m sure Waxman, Conyers, Rangel and Co. will come up with so much damning evidence of wrong-doing, it will be inevitable, and Pelosi will bow to their findings.

Can’t believe Pelosi said impeachment is off the table.
Wow! Talk about bursting my bubble. I knew it was a long shot that the Dems in Congress would be courageous enough to follow through…but it was the fantasy that kept me excited about the election.

All us crazy conspiracy theorists were encouraged to hold our britches and wait until the Democrats get the majority…now we learn the best we can hope for is obstruction of the President’s agenda.

I’m sure there must be some strategic thinking to this…perhaps Washington insiders think bashing or standing up to an unpopular lame-duck President for two years is better than dragging the country through another bitter, vindictive partisan trial.

But, surely Pelosi could have phrased it differently….i.e. “Impeachment is not our top-priority” or some other ambiguous phrase like “I’m not going to speculate on what actions Congress may or may not take to hold this President accountable….” At least it would have kept my false hope alive…until after I voted.

I’d expect Republicans to try to supress the left vote…but I’m a bit surprised Dems would do it to themselves! Kinda leaves one feeling like “A Democratic majority? Whatever”

Even if the House impeaches those two men, the Senate will never remove them. Even barring a GOP filibuster, leading Senate Dems with eyes on 2008 don’t want a Pelosi presidency scuttling their chances. Only if the House can uncover serious crimes where the public is marching in the streets demanding Bush and Cheney’s removal will make it happen.

I question whether an impeachment vote is fillibusterable. My guess is that it is not but might take better than a mere majority to convict.

Impeaching Cheney makes all the sense in the world. It can allow for a real smackdown of a figure that most of the American public does not care for, allowing the investigators to collect lots and lots of info which can be used against Bush if Congress so chooses. It also allows for a figure that even moderate GOP folk can throw under the bus. If all sorts of skullduggery is proven during the Cheney impeachment that also implicates Bush’s actual knowledge or participation, the public will push for impeachment of Bush. If nothing too bad is discovered re Bush, then Congress can act with restraint and simply censure the crap out of him, permanently embarrassing him throughout his remaining two years in office and also ensure taht the Bush name will go hand in hand with the word disgrace for decades to come.

#25 “Even if the House impeaches those two men, the Senate will never remove them.”

chegitz guevara may be right. But I gotta belive that if they’ve done all that we think they have, and investigations can prove they had foreknowledge of 9/11 and failed to protect American citizens, there’s noooo way the US Senate does not convict. What Republican could go back to his or her constituients and say they supported a Prez/VicePrez who allowed those horrible events to take place?

But if you don’t hold El Residente and Darth Cheney to account for the crimes they’ve committed, surely that begs the question of exactly what an Administration has to do to be considered impeachable? Furthermore, wouldn’t a failure to impeach set the bar for what High Crimes and Misdemeanours actually are so ridiculously high that you’d be handing any future Administration a blank-cheque in the form of a truly lousy Constitutional precedent?

It’s this kind of “I’ll do anything for my country, but I won’t do THAT” meekness that has crippled the Democratic Party for the last decade. The GOP knew they’d never get Clinton’s impeachment proceedings past the Senate, but that was never the point. They wanted to drag Clinton through an investigation so they could use whatever came up to smear him as morally corrupt, and then use the fact that the Senate wouldn’t convict as an excuse to do the same to the entire Democratic Party. Conviction was never in their gameplan, it was just an exercise in destroying one man’s reputation so as to weaken his Party through ‘guilt by association’.

I really do fail to see how you can think that El Res’ and/or the GOP would come out of any impeachment process looking better than the Democrats. Exactly what do you think they’ve done in the last six years that would make the American Electorate feel sorry for them if it came out? Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow-job and his reputation still hasn’t recovered, El Res’ has lied about so much shit that it’s very hard to see even the “Chewbaca Defence” working out for him in the court of public opinion. Impeachment would put the Republicans on the back foot for the next two years because it’d put the onus on them to justify their record in a setting where perjury carries serious jail-time. Can you really see them doing that? Even with today’s compliant American Media?

And one last point. Given that this Administration is going to go down in history as the worst ever, how do you think voters in, say, 20 years time are going to regard the Party that failed to hold the worst Presidency in American history to account because they were scared of – maybe – losing a partisan advantage?

“What did you do in Congress, Daddy?”

“I kept my mouth shut, son.”

“Why aren’t you in Congress anymore, Daddy?”

“Because I kept my mouth shut, son.”

Have a nice one.

There IS a possible window that would allow for the impeachment of Herr Bush….

A simple majority in the House is all that’s required to vote for articles of impeachment—and a Dem majority seems pretty well assured at this point.

As for the Senate, those voting against conviction would have to provide support for their vote. If the articles are thoroughly truthful, then those in the Senate choosing to vote against conviction might make themselves potential candidates for criminal investigations—as “aiding-and-abetting” could, in and of itself, be considered a criminal activity. Give the Dems a majority in the Senate—which, by default, provides them with control over the various investigatory committees—and eventually, the possibility to “clean out” the Senate-centric echelon of Herr Bush’s Crime Machine.

If, for example, Dems take 51 Senate seats, they need an additional 16 to carry through an impeachment conviction. Of those 16 needed votes, their could be 7, maybe even 8, who would shift simply because the “Dark Side” no longer commands a majority. Then their might be another 5 or 6 who would willingly accept truthful evidence against Herr Bush. That leaves anywhere from 2 to 4 who would require, shall we say, “encouragement.”

Think of this as taking the “great big guns” forged by the likes of Delay, Frist, Boehner, and Hastert over these past several years, and turning them on their own makers—the GOP.

We know the tactic works well; we’ve seen it in action.

We know the strategy, although exceptionally vulgar, can easily succeed if applied with enough brute force.

And the timeframe, from January 3 to the creation of a Senate willing to convict, could be as little as 6 months—which is a good sight better than simply “waiting it out” until January 2009….

They all take an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. For anyone, including Pelosi, to guarantee that Bush won’t be impeached is just wrong. Why doesn’t she just pick up the phone and tell King George he can do any damn thing he feels like. (Not that he needs any encouragement.) Personally, I think Bush has already committed a host of impeachable offenses but what if, in the course any potential Democratic investigation, evidence is revealed of flagrant high crimes and/or misdemeanors. To say impeachment is off the table is a violation of their oath of office and it’s the height of irresponsibility.

Pelosi continues to confirm my opinion that she’s an idiot and should not be leading the House for the Dems. Every time a reporter asks – “would you use military force against ____ ?” they always say you can’t take it off the table.

That’s exactly how Pelosi should be responding. Why tie your hands and create the potential for backtracking? WTF? How tough is it to say that we’re a long time and a lot of consideration from determining if impeachment is an option. In other words, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Pelosi’s political savvy is severely questionable. I have seen so few examples where she has shown real leadership that, even if the Dems do take back the House, where will she lead?

Well, okay, if you think it’s just not going to happen, then can we impeach Cheney and Rumsfeld, and arrest Rove? The first priority for a Democratic Congress should be to render the administration impotent, and leaving W to stutter his way through his last two years without the guidance of these soulless manipulators would do it.

I’m convinced that if the Dems win one or both chambers, Bush/Cheney will actively provoke a Constitutional crisis necessitating their impeachment.

[Confidence Man]

Excellent point. The way ShrubCo has operated for the past six years guarantees that the minute Congress thwarts whatever impulse is driving President Toddler that week, full bore assery a-plenty will break out. Our fearless leader doesn’t know how to negotiate and he’s used to treating Congress like a seralgio and I don’t see him enjoying his overdue status of Lamest Duck on the Block. At the risk of sounding like I’ve had a tin foil hat grafted to my skull, I would not be surprised if we see tanks around the Capitol if the Dems take the majority. But full scale, front page, technicolour idiocy is what we want. It can’t be ignored, denied or spun.

Those tanks? Uh, we didn’t have any where to park them. And one accidentally fired a few rounds at the Supreme Court. Um…what are you doing with that big vat of tar and those feather pillows…

I just can’t help but feel that people aren’t afraid that Democrats are going to do something drastic in congress. That’s why they’re voting for them.

I think destroying the Separation of Powers, destroying Habeaus Corpus, sending the nation to war on a lie and consciously lying when taking the oath to defend and protect the Constitution certainly qualify as four High Crimes; as to the Misdemeanors, just list everything else they have done from the day the court declared Boobus Moronus the winner in 2000.

You people are loony toons. Are you posting form St. Elizabeth.

Come to hereand see how sane people act.

Losers

For my part, I completely accept Pelosi et als. contention that impeachment is off the table…I do hope that we have “Investigation-palooza” though. But mostly, I just want the party in control to pummel the Bushies with sound, rational, and fair policies. To turn this nation around; to right some wrongs; to restore our prestige in the world; to effectively neuter the faux-gunslinger residing temporarily at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave…Wouldn’t that really be the best revenge? Maybe the unitary executive could be forced to receive advice and consent from the legislative branch, culminating in a sound exit strategy for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Maybe how we deal with North Korea might be different/better. Maybe they could enact some sustainable environmental and energy policies. Maybe they could undo some of the damage done to the Constitution. Maybe we could put ourselves on a track toward fiscal balance again. Maybe we could consider doing something (anything!!) to begin to bring 12+ million children out of poverty. Maybe we could alleviate some of the stranglehold the corporatists have on our policy-making apparatus. Maybe some of the 43+ million Americans without adequate health care might find some sort of relief. I don’t know…To me, the shame inflicted on the White House and the out-of-power party would seem enough of a reward.
But I’m a dreamer, I know….

(skipping past the other comments, so sorry if anything is repetitive)

Impeachment should be a top priority because of one simple thing. Iraq. 650,000 dead so far, the situation growing steadily worse with no end in sight, where the only people who are florishing are al Qaeda, and an administration who believes we must remain doing the same thing we are doing, which is creating chaos and doing nothing to improve the situation.

This administration has no plan, it has no intention to ever create a plan, it considers the present lack of a plan to be the preferred situation since in all likelihood they want to cause al Qaeda to flourish and become a greater threat, since this benefits them politically.

They put the brakes on the investigation of the Cole bombing and were as soft on terrorism as anyone could be for 8 months while Bush spent most of his time vacationing. They ignored the sirens and intelligence analysts running around with their hair on fire and allowed al Qaeda to attack the World Trade Center a second time. (Although I totally support the overthrow of the Taliban,) they invaded Afghanistan and incompetently let bin Laden get away, they abandoned their promises to stay and help reconstruct the country, and now Afghanistan is seeing a resurgent Taliban. They blatantly lied their way into Iraq – and let’s all accept what everybody knows, that they didn’t care about the truth, they just wanted to take out Saddam, the administration is full of PNACers, after all – and have run it incompetently ever since, causing the lives of Iraqis (the ones who don’t get killed) to become steadily worse, and they continue to lie blatantly about that. If they have half a chance, they’ll invade Iran too. And rather than continue to challenge North Korea with diplomacy (because that’s soo Clintonesque) they have done nothing to oppose the North Koreans for six years and now they have nukes.

Further, they have eroded our Constitutional liberties to a far greater extent than anyone since Roosevelt (who threw the Japanese into concentration camps during WWII.) They claim the power to detain people indefinitely without access to the courts, to torture, and to use in court confessions extracted under the duress of torture, all in blatant violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution – half the Bill of Rights.

This administration is the worst we have ever had, and the greatest threat this country has faced since the end of the Cold War.

If Democrats, by some miracle, regain both houses of Congress this year, they still have to contend with a lawless administration who is also the sole authority over our military forces in Iraq, and – we should have no doubt – will attack other countries without authorization from Congress. Bush will not make the situation better in Iraq. Bush will not stop violating US laws and the Constitution.

How can this not be a top priority?

The only way to prevent this administration from further destroying three countries (at least) for another two years is for Democrats to regain control of both houses of Congress and impeach and convict both Bush and Cheney.

The only reason this is wishful thinking is because the Democrats are too soft and accomodating to do it.

demonrats preparing teir base

here

here

So we can all agree that, as the surviving klutzwaffen drones have had to fall back on their default tactic of fact-free, gutless heckling on this issue, the ‘Left’ has clearly won this argument hands down.

Surprising? Only if you haven’t been paying attention for the last decade.