So, how are you gonna feel about impeachment if Pelosi does it now & we get 55 senators vote yes

[LynneSin]

Because if we rush into the impeachment that's what you're gonna get, something less than 67 which means Bush gets a slap on his hand and keeps his job. Remember Clinton was impeached and yet he served his entire term to completion because the senate failed to get the 67 senators needed to remove him from office.

So before you start another whiny fucking 'WHY CAN'T NANCY IMPEACH RIGHT NOW AND PUT THE THING ON THE TABLE' perhaps you should come to my place and play some poker. Because you're probably the type that totally gives away what cards you're holding and you'll lose every single time.

Impeachment is off the table. My Salt & Pepper shaker is also off the table because when I leave it on there my damn cats knock it over and make a mess. But if I taste something and it needs seasoning trust me, my salt and pepper are only a few feet away for me to grab and use.

I want an impeachment to but if we rush into this we're not gonna get the votes we need to actually remove Bush from office. Use your brain folks - encourage investigation and trust me, the impeachment AND removal will follow

[AndyA]

1. Yes, you are right.

I've been pretty vocal about impeachment. I want it, by George (pardon the pun) Bush and Cheney asked for it, they deserve it, and they should get it!

But logically, the i's must be dotted and the t's crossed before we get to that point. I think as Bush/Cheney's popularity continue to erode, more and more GOPers will realize they must jump on the impeachment bandwagon if they are to have another term in office.

At any rate, we're much closer now than we've ever been before. The odds will continue to improve in our favor. Let the investigations (and then impeachment) begin! :)

[GOTV]

73. Likewise. Agree and Rec! n/t

[LoZoccolo]

2. Clinton served his entire term and...

...his approval rating shot up to just under 70%.

[LynneSin]

4. Oh I'm not doubting that - just saying that we impeached him but nothing changed

And that isn't good enough for me when it comes to George Bush

[GOTV]

75. Well, one thing changed. We got to say we were right and they were wrong about BC...

... the impeachment proved it.

[yurbud]

91. if Bush impeached but acquited, will put historic stink on him & lead to comparison to Clinton

And a hundred years from now people will look at the two cases side by side and see something is wrong with the picture.

Without even an attempted impeachment, the GOP rehabilitation of Bush's "legacy" has a greater chance of success.


If the Democrats let this fall by the wayside,they will get the same thanks they got for letting Papa Bush off the hook on Iran Contra--the right will come back nastier and more ruthless.

[pnwmom]

97. I think his point is supporting yours, LynneSin.

Impeaching a President, without a conviction in the Senate, doesn't do much good. And it could vindicate him in the eyes of the public.

[Taverner]

3. I trust Pelosi's strategic descisionmaking

If she goes with impeachment, I can trust she can pull it off.

If she says its off the table, then I can trust that it would do more harm than good.

Pelosi comes from a long line of Political experts - so I know if anyone can pull it off she can.

[LynneSin]

8. Actually the 'pulling off' really is in Harry Reid's hands

If I'm correct, she only needs a majority and I think she can get it. But I think at best we could get 51 votes from the Senate and that's it.

It's not good enough

[Taverner]

11. Yes and with all that is on the table

Should they be spinning their wheels on this one?

Bush should be impeached on principle, but realpolitik says something different. Pelosi knows realpolitik better than anyone else in the House.

I mean think of what she pulled off? A brazen, Liberal San Francisco WOMAN just became Speaker of the House, and despite all of the fear tactics the Repubs ran.

I don't think people realize how hard this was.

[Akoto]

5. I agree with you, and ...

People also seem to be angry at Pelosi for not cutting funding for Bush's surge. Thing is, doesn't Bush already have that money? Wasn't it appropriated by the previous Congress?

[LynneSin]

9. Yes that is correct

And I believe there is talk about future cutbacks on funding

[DearAbby]

48. People are angry for Pelosi cutting the funding

for what they had been polled, to be overwhelmingly against...'splain that to me. Why would people against the surge, be angry that funds are not being appropriated, for the surge they are against?

[GOTV]

78. It's weird, I noticed that too...

... people are for symbolic opposition of congress but not active interference.

[EFerrari]

83. Do you have a source for that so I can go read? n/t

[DearAbby]

I can do a search

I recalled having read it here on DU, Sunday night.

Edit
Gosh do I feel silly, wrong place for this post :Smacksforeheadsmiley:

[EFerrari]

89. Oh -- don't. I can do that. Because, when I listened to the WJ callers

they were all mostly in favor of accounting for every dime -- on both lines. It was one of the weirder WJ segments I've heard. Both lines were supportive of being careful. :crazy:

[DearAbby]

94. I have no problem with accounting for every dime

I just can't imagine why people would be wanting to fund a "surge" they are overwhelmingly against.

[NotGivingUp]

96. it's cuz the goddam media has people brainwashed to believe that's not 'supporting the troops'

[wryter2000]

6. I've said this until I was blue in the face

I keep picturing the Chimp's smirk when the Senate failed to convict him. He'd proclaim that he'd just won some political capital -- that the dems had given him their best shot and couldn't make anything stick. That would be followed by endless punditry about how we impeached him as revenge for their impeaching Clinton and nothing more.

In other words, we make *him* look good.

Once the whole country is screaming for him to be removed to the point where we could get 67 votes in the Senate, THEN go at it. But please wait until there's some hope of actually getting rid of him.

[Richardo]

31. ;-)

What you both said.

[wryter2000]

43. I just KNEW you'd show up

How's the bookstore biz?

[pnwmom]

98. I couldn't agree more.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Investigate, uncover, report, (voters) demand impeachment

The crime(s) have to be serious enough that the voters demand impeachment and Republican Senators and Representatives can't ignore their constituents.

[ContraBass Black]

10. I'll hope that they have everything necessary to convict.

[blm]

12. Bush wouldn't last through the investigation stage - he'd resign before it reached impeachment.

He has no real fortitude when he is unprotected to the degree he needs from the corpmedia. But the corpmedia wore out all its protective coatings by the time Katrina came around.

[lonestarnot]

116. That would be grand now wouldn't it. Save money, time, and effort.

[sandnsea]

13. That's exactly right

God knows there's more than enough to impeach the SOB's, but it would be far better for the snowball to grow and a massive resignation take place.

[Hobarticus]

14. No, dammit, NO, LynneSin! I want to lose an impeachment bid RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!

Screw that poker analogy!

Let's force a hopeless vote RIGHT NOW!!!

Where's that "head exploding" emoticon???

[mmonk]

15. I thought Impeachment is off the table.

[cool user name]

16. Somewhat of a strawman argument you have there ...

No one is arguing against investigations. And where did you get the 55 senators number? You can't make an argument using arbitrary totals here.

:wtf:

[LynneSin]

22. Let's just say any number less than 67 senators

Since 67 is the actually number needed to remove Bush from office. This isn't a strawman comment - it's the facts. Right here, right now we do not have the 67 senators needed to remove Bush from office. Hell, I doubt we'll have every democrat supporting removal.

I just get tired of these "GET RID OF NANCY SHE WON'T IMPEACH" threads because people aren't thinking this whole process thru. We need to get all the crimes exposed and as someone said "get the snowball rolling" to the point that republicans will want to join us in removing him. Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid know exactly what they're doing and oddly enough - I trust them when it comes to the impeachment issue

[cool user name]

27. How do you KNOW that we don't have 67 senators?

You don't. Neither do I.

But impeachment is necessary. Investigations are integral to impeachment. So, Congress needs to their duty and hold this administration accountable.

[LynneSin]

28. Oh trust me, I could easily name 30-40 senators we wouldn't get right now

And they all have "R" next to their name and perhaps a few with "D" or "I"

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate - that's absolutely manditory and it is happening. I'm just saying that people here at DU need to stop getting reactionary because they haven't called for the impeachment yet. Let Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid do their jobs

[cool user name]

35. Well, I guess you and I are somewhat on the same page ...

However, I do think it was a mistake to say it's off the table. I don't understand the point in that. It was unsolicited too.

However, we both know that investigations/impeachment go hand in hand so I guess we're splitting hairs.

:shrug:

[wryter2000]

49. I think we're all on the same page

The reason "off the table" came up was because the R's were pounding the talking point "They want to impeach the President!" Plus, if we're talking about removing Bush and Cheney (and I think we are), Nancy P. would have been announcing that she intended to make herself President. Very, very bad PR, imho.

[EFerrari]

39. I call bullshit. You don't. You have no way of knowing when the rats

will put on their lifesavers.

[LynneSin]

52. Actually that's how we'll get Bush out of office - you called it exactly!!

When we expose the truth and just how corrupt this administration is - that's exactly what they'll do ESPECIALLY since 21 republican senators are up for re-election again.

I'm just saying right now we don't have 67 votes - doesn't mean we'll never have them

[EFerrari]

I think that's right. In a way, they will do it to themselves.

Let's just please hand them the rope. :evilgrin:

[wryter2000]

46. Which R's in the Senate do you think would vote to get rid of him?

Honest question.

[LynneSin]

51. Well I think anyone opposing the surge COULD be a candidate

I figured if they're willing to criticize Bush for the war then perhaps they'll do something about it.

[wryter2000]

59. Is that anyone other than Hagel?

I guess Voinovich was making some good noises. I don't know if they've come around to getting rid of the Chimpster, though.

[GOTV]

80. You have it backwards. You need to know you have 67 to start....

... you don't have to know you have less to wait.

If you can't name the 67 you've got, then you have work to do before you start impeachment proceedings.

[GOTV]

79. You certainly can't count on lieberman's vote n/t

[wryter2000]

45. I think LynneSin is being generous with 55

There are only 49 Dems. Sanders would vote to convict, but Lieberman sure wouldn't. The Nelsons and Landreiu might not vote to convict, either. I doubt we've gotten to the point where we could get any R votes.

I see fewer than 50 votes.

[onenote]

125. I think at this point its "generous" to assume that the votes are there in the House

Yes, the Democrats have a nice margin in the House, but if you look at them individually, I'm not sure you can't find a substantial number that would argue that the time is not right to vote for impeachment or even to start talking about impeachment. These members undoubtedly would support investigations/oversight ostensibly for their own sake -- but would be reluctant to characterize those efforts as an undertaking directly related to impeachment at this point.

[libnnc]

17. I keep my S&P on the stove...

I concur.

[Nightjock]

18. You nailed it!

It is the ONLY way to get him out. THE ONLY WAY.

[porphyrian]

19. You're arguing a non-issue.

Investigations will and are absolutely going to come before impeachment. Calling for impeachment now can't change that - it's part of the process. However, the process is a slow one, and it won't get off the ground unless we show that we want it to our representatives in Congress. They presumably have the education to know how to go about it with or without your coaching us as to what we should or shouldn't do. Investigations are already underway. Your vote tally, which may or may not be accurate at all, means nothing because that vote won't occur until much later, after the investigations anyway. Given the number and nature of this administration's crimes, I don't think anyone expecting to stay in a political office will vote against it when the time comes. Calling for impeachment now is actually necessary if we want it to happen. However, feel free not to do it if that's what you want.

[LynneSin]

24. I think this is more of a reactionary post to the 800 "Nancy Sucks because she won't impeach" thread

I see them and I want to point out the the strategy behind the "off the table" comment. I just hate to see us rush into the impeachment (not investigations - do that now) and we come up with nothing but a slap on the hand.

[porphyrian]

42. Reactionary posts? On DU?

I see what you're saying, but there is just no chance that calling for impeachment now is going to make it happen before investigations. If anything, I think that argument may be hindering impeachment. Drastic change happens at glacial speed if we operate within the system. Calling for impeachment now is probably a good idea if we want it to happen in our lifetime.

[LynneSin]

50. And that's very true but asking for Nancy Pelosi's head isn't gonna help

:D

[porphyrian]

53. Yeah, that's extreme.

Maybe they really mean it. Maybe they typed it without thinking things through. At least it's someone else's opinion and not yours.

[LynneSin]

55. I know from experience that this website is monitored by all sorts of folks

including right-wing columnists and other folks who would love to point out how 'silly' we democrats are acting. You think I'm kidding - google LynneSin and USAToday, I got mentioned in a column that was distributed through the Gannett Network of Papers. BTW, I stand by my comments although I was a bit peeved about the lack of food available on a cross-country flight I had to San Diego.

[porphyrian]

63. We should determine our behavior by what other people think about it?

Fuck them. Who gives a shit if they think we're silly or anything else? I don't owe the right-wing one goddamn thing. Let them print whatever they want. We can do the same.

[GOTV]

82. When you NEED the cooperation of other people to succeed, YES!

If you don't care about succeeding you can ignore others opinions

[EFerrari]

86. But it works in both directions. Persuasion.

Threat of impending political catastrophe.

Near certainty of having your access to the trough blocked.

It's a beautiful thing.

:)

[GOTV]

132. I'm sorry. I don't really understand what you were trying to say. n/t

[porphyrian]

87. Wrong.

We don't NEED the cooperation of others to succeed. They can vote to impeach for purely selfish reasons, and I suspect many will. You are still going on about your "my way is the only way to impeachment" bullshit, aren't you?

My success has nothing to do with the opinions of others. If your success does, I pity you.

[GOTV]

131. You cannot stop Bush without the help of others. It's a simple fact.

The house of representatives cannot stop Bush without the help of others either. Namely the Senators.

I'm not talking about "my way" to impeachment. I'm talking about the way the process works per the constitution. Impeachment doesn't stop presidents. Conviction in the Senate does. You can imagine all kinds of other ways we'd like it to work but no matter how many time you try to insult me the constitution will only say one thing on the subject. In fact even if you and I agree that there's another way, the constitution will continue to say the same thing.

And what it says is, that to remove a president through impeachment you need the support of 2/3 the Senate.

So. Despite your subject line, I am right.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Yes, exactly!

Very well put.

We'll use that salt and pepper yet -- or history will. Either way, he's not going to escape history's condemnation.

[mmonk]

21. Impeachment process

The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

If you look at the 3rd step, there is your hearings or "investigation". If you look at the 4th step, you'll note what impeachment is.

[LynneSin]

26. Thanks for the great breakdown of the process

I see too many people who want to skip over step #2 and go right to step #3.

[mmonk]

29. I messed up. I meant 3rd and 4th.

I'll edit to correct it.

[mmonk]

33. Also, I used president in the description but of course, it

could be vice president, judge, or whatever office holder depending on whom is to be impeached. Credit goes to a Cornell law article.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

[Leopolds Ghost]

112. But Pelosi said Steps #1 and #2 are off the table. So, no CRIMINAL investigation in Congress.

Just wrist-slapping of the Bush administration for breaking the law "in the past".

Don't believe me? The New York Times is now saying that the NSA Wiretap
scandal has been "solved", according to its opinion page. If we've lost
the opinion page of the New York Times, who is now saying it's legal, we
have no ability to impeach him for the high crime of wiretapping every
man, woman and child in America.

[porphyrian]

113. You don't believe Congressman Waxman will uncover anything?

I'm not saying you should have faith, but it seems to me that you're ignoring a key element.

[Leopolds Ghost]

115. The current inquiries are not structured in a way capable of uncovering criminal wrongdoing.

They are not impeachment inquiries, and therefore not appropriate forums for forcing officials to admit criminal wrongdoing, because they are not ACCUSED of criminal wrongdoing.

When a Senator like Gordon Smith says "what you guys are doing is basically criminal" it has no effect, because the purpose of the hearings is not to confirm Smith's statement.

Therefore, regardless of what Waxman et al. may think privately, they have to keep it to themselves.

"Letting the facts out" in a non-impeachment fact-finding mission is no different than "letting the facts out" in a tabloid newspaper -- embarrassing, but not admissible in a court of criminal inquiry.

Sorry, guys. When Pelosi and Rahm say to Tim Russert that impeachment will not happen "no matter what investigations may uncover", they meant it. You are too used to hearing the lies of the Bush administration to remember the day when people are being honest. I believe them because I never imagined them to be "on my side" to begin with. They are to the right of me on bread-and-butter issues, and I'm not particularly far to the "left". I think it's sad how this is the best we can do against the far-right Republican party.

[porphyrian]

120. You don't believe the people can or will demand impeachment as the facts are revealed?

I don't doubt that the politicians said what they meant to Russert, but it's not entirely their decision. If we demand it, they'll have to comply, don't you think?

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. They are only afraid of Democrats who have money. That's why the Clintons are so powerful

And the Democratic voters who have money (the "enlightened portion" of the plutocracy) don't want to do anything radical on behalf of the poor or the dying, for the very simple reason that they are anti-populist -- they have given populism as a tool to the right-wing, and the right-wing are very skilled at using it to say that Pelosi, et al. are "tools of the elite special interests". In other words, they are afraid of the right wing because they ARE beholden to elite special interests, because of the campaign finance system... but those special interests (software moguls, New York financial executives, etc) are PREVENTED from doing anything that is actually liberal, for fear of losing influence and being accused of being an "elite leftist". It's a vicious circle you always get when you are a party of the "left" that is dependent on money from the "enlightened portion" of the elite. The progressive parties of 1790s France, 1900s Russia and 1920s Germany had the same problem.

[porphyrian]

124. Won't the campaign finance reform change this?

Or am I confusing the ethics bill/law with campaign finance reform?

[Seabiscuit]

139. Impeachment is an indictment by the House. Removal follows a conviction

in the Senate.

What's confusing is that the word Impeachment has commonly been used only when the indictment is followed by removal.

[Parche]

23. impeachment

You are exactly correct

The only way we will get over 67 Senators is if they investigate and find something so
horrible, (which I know IS out there) and almost everyone votes to impeach, except of course
Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL where GW Bush would have to commit murder etc for him to vote yes......

[mmonk]

38. Senators aren't required to impeach. Impeach is to charge.

That is done in the House. See my description of the process above.

[Parche]

41. impeach

Yes I know, the Senate is the final say in the whole process

[mmonk]

44. My postion is this (and I know a lot of people disagree).

I think someone should initiate an impeachment inquiry. I could care less if its for bush, Cheney , Gonzo or all three. That changes all debate. All focus will change (meaning the media will finally have to address the issues of what they've done). Each charge of course will be debated before hearings and the votes for or against each charge and the public will at least have witness to that.

[LynneSin]

74. And then after all the hoopla is done we get less than 67 senators to support it

There was a great post above (from the person who said "Bullshit Lynne") which sums up how we're gonna get Bush out of office. We need to get his crimes exposed to the point that 67+ senators including about 25 republicans (factoring the obvious Lieberman and possibly a Nelson defection) will want to impeach him because they know if we don't their entire party will go down in flames.

Investigations will easily expose the crimes that's not good enough for me - I want him REMOVED from office which means an impeachment won't be enough

[mmonk]

85. Even with all the evidence laid out in front of the public?

I don't understand why you don't think there will be investigations with an impeachment inquiry. In my opinion, if the dems look like they are going to proceed, I would imagine some repukes will make the journey to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to tell him its time to go.

In my opinion, I think an impeachment of Gonzo might could lead to a resignation. As far as these hearings right now, I'm not sure they are getting proper attention but I will wait and see.

[Leopolds Ghost]

117. Dem Senators that will never in a million years vote for Bush impeachment:

Lieberman (Ct)
Salazar (Co)
Landrieu (La)
Nelson (Neb)
Pryor (Ark)
Bayh (Ind)
Castle (Del)
Rockefeller (WV) (said he might support a law to LEGALIZE
mass wiretapping "if it were demonstrated to
be effective and more importantly, LEGAL")
Clinton (NY) (too interested in getting elected President, if you think
she would go for this, you have another think coming)
Schumer (NY) (he and Emanuel jointly told Tim Russert that
impeachment would NOT occur
"no matter what investigations may uncover" --
"and that is a pledge" -- this was in response
to a question about Pelosi's "pledge")

[GOTV]

134. Good list. It shows how much work we need to do before impeachment. n/t

[GOTV]

84. That's why we count Senators. Impeachment is not removal and therefore useless by itself

[mmonk]

93. So you are also counting there will not be enough evidence?

Therefore you're predicting outcomes? One things is for sure, if you don't proceed or at least make it known you will, there will be no removal. A majority of the American public wants impeachment if he lied. That's not exactly hard to prove. Will this be the first case where the public leads the opposition party in wanting impeachment?

[GOTV]

133. No. I'm counting on the fact there is CURRENTLY not enough evidence...

... I'm and sure that there WILL BE enough evidence if we take the time to look for it.

If impeachment started today though, the charges would be made up of the evidence we have today and would not include charges that could come from the hearings that we are currently having and the hearings that we may soon be having.

>One things is for sure, if you don't proceed or at least make it known you will, there will be no removal

Absolutely. We agree on this. If we never start impeachment the president will fill his whole term. That's one of many ways we can lose this. Another way to lose this battle is to start before all our guns are loaded.

>the American public wants impeachment if he lied.

That was shown by one poll only. I'm not sure I know the mind of the public from a single poll. A bunch of polls last year said the public was against impeachment. Well, it's a new year now and maybe the people feel differently. I don't know. I'm looking forward to seeing the first impeachment polls of this year and I hope to see them swinging our direction.

>Will this be the first case where the public leads the opposition party in wanting impeachment?

Possibly. I hope that when Congress starts impeachment proceedings that the public is fully behind it. Because then we're much more likely to be successful in the Senate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

114. Surely you think wiretapping every man, woman and child is horrible enough

Or trying to make everyone carry ID cards, or creating false intel to justify "the ultimate war crime" -- military agression... But stick to my original point -- the notion that wiretapping everyone is not "so horrible".

Perhaps because Clinton did it too, or whatever. Race to the bottom.

There, now. It's not so bad, is it?

These are public knowledge, and no amount of investigation will increase peoples' awareness of them further.

[Wildewolfe]

25. The call for impeachment...

... won't come from the democratic side of congress. It will come from the republican side as the direct result of investigations. They will need to put as much political distance between themselves and * as possible, and it's not possible to put much more distance than by initiating impeachment.

When that happens bush is toast.

[mmonk]

47. How do you figure that?

The public isn't really paying attention to the hearings, only political junkies. They won't pay attention until the media brings it front and center which they probably won't unless it has the words "impeachment inquiry". I could be wrong, but it's my opinion. I still don't think the media is going to help.

But that aside, how do you figure? Why would a republican want someone in his or her party impeached?

[wryter2000]

54. ABC played Leahy going off on Gonzo last night

It's already getting some coverage.

I see your point about investigations going on within the impeachment process, but I think the investigations will be broader outside of an impeachment process.

Gonzo either has to produce documents now or show up in front of Judiciary to explain that the dog ate his homework. In the meantime, Waxman is firing up investigations of war profiteering. The Senate Intelligence Committee can get back (finally) to the second part of the "flawed intelligence" (actually lies) that got us into the war.

IOW, we have lots of investigations going on concurrently. Enough to keep all the White House lawyers sleep-deprived.

[mmonk]

60. Enough to keep all the White House lawyers sleep-deprived.

:rofl:

[wryter2000]

64. Thanks

Sleep deprived and careless. :thumbsup:

[yurbud]

69. Republican support will be the tipping point, but Dems should NOT leave it to them to initiate it

Bush is not that much of an aberration. He represents the embodiment of what the GOP wants to do to America and the world as evidenced by the rigid party discipline Bush was able to exercise for most of his tenure. If we wait for the GOP to lead on this, they will absolve themselves of most of their guilt and Democrats will look like exactly what they were for six years--passive.

[yurbud]

70. You're right. We should have waited for the Nazis to initiate the Nuremberg trials too

so it wouldn't look like a partisan witch hunt.

[Matariki]

30. LOVE the salt & pepper analogy!

:rofl:

[LynneSin]

34. Yeah, I'm not sure which one made a mess

But it looked like they used the salt shaker as a soccer ball

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Do it wrong, we might get 55 votes in the Senate

Do it right and we'll get 70 or 80.

[yurbud]

36. TWO reasons to do it anyway:

1. the procedings would inevitably reveal more abuses and remind people of old ones, thereby increasing public pressure for impeachment therefore the number of votes for it.
   
   
2. even if Bush is not removed, he deserves the stink of having gone through the process, which has only been done twice before and seriously threatened one other time.

[LynneSin]

58. Isn't that what the investigation is doing?

I never said "Don't Impeach" I'm just saying we need to let these investigations work through and who cares about the 'Off the Table' remark. It's not stored in a lockbox with the key thrown away. It's just put someplace safe so when we need it, it's not all spoilt. And trust me the media and right-wing screeds will try their best to spoil it if we call it too quickly

[yurbud]

65. I think it relates to a slightly smaller issue of Democrats communication style: incrementalism vs.

GOP's bottom line approach.

The GOP says what they want ad nauseum until the public believes it's the only sensible thing to do.

Essentially, Democrats negotiate in public. And in that sense, I can see why they would say that impeachment is "off the table," but the effect on the rank and file, like their "rope a dope" strategy for most of the bush years, is demoralizing to the rank and file, the people you need to make donations, answer phones, and knock on doors.

[EFerrari]

37. You're right, Lynne. We're moving 'way too fast on impeaching

the worst president ever whose crimes are so obvious even children can recite them.

Not.

[yurbud]

67. well, there is no evidence he has committed cannibalism in the oval office

yet

[EFerrari]

81. I'm sorry if I'm misreading Lynne, which I've done before. All I know is

this motherfucker is going to go. He can go quietly or he can make a fuss.

But, he's toast. People are furious and they're not shutting up any more.

Maybe the Democrats have to be circumspect. I don't.

YOU ARE TOAST, JUNIOR. And I am willing to devote eight hours a day to make sure you get your criminal @ss kicked out of the people's house. You called for patriotism? You got it.

[yurbud]

90. you and I agree completely. We don't have to be circumspect and SHOULDN'T

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. He turned me into a Newt!

I got better.

[yurbud]

40. We have a different role than congress. Our job is to yell to impeach until it seems inevitable

Dems in Congress job is to figure out best way to get there.

The worst thing we could do is be quiet. Second worst is yell for something that seems like a half-measure.

Yelling for impeachment has the side effect of making the elected Democrats seem reasonable by contrast with us--essentially playing good cop/bad cop.

[mmonk]

56. No, impeachment is their job (and duty).

[GOTV]

68. We can be publically for impeachment. Congressional Dems should play it differently

They should, as they've been doing, act as if impeachment is not the goal but keep the pressure on to lance this boil of an administration and get all that junk into the public sight.

If we can get a substantial majority of the public calling for impeachment it will force the Senators to acquiesce and we can proceed with impeachment without risk.

[LynneSin]

77. In no way we should shush about impeachment

Hell I'll probably carry a sign saying that.

Just this anti-Pelosi stuff serves no purpose - let the woman do her job

[Stinky The Clown]

57. Thhis impeachment hawk gives a K&R for a voice of sound reason.

[GOTV]

61. 55 Senators not equal wrist slap. It equals W being totally vindicated, validated and consecrated.

55 votes mean we were wrong and they were right.
55 votes mean all future mention of W's high crimes gets countered with "you tried, you lost, get over it"
55 votes mean all of corporate media saying "We told you so"
55 votes mean that W is free to set all his terrible policies on full steam ahead.
55 votes mean the effective end of the oppositional congress.

[LynneSin]

62. One additional note about Investigation vs. Impeachment

In no way am I saying never to impeach. I'm also not critical of the concept of we the people demanding an impeachment - that's extremely important.

I'm just tired of these radical "Nancy must go, she won't impeach" threads. It's not that she won't impeach, she's just got to get the evidence out there so we can have the majority of the house and 67 senators vote to remove Bush. And another poster made an extremely good point - if we really nail Bush against the wall republicans are gonna want to get off that sinking ship especially with 21 republicans up for re-election in the senate in 2008

[DancingBear]

66. Oh yes, let's wait

How many more need to die before you feel the need to season your food?

500?

1000?

100000?

What logic. Playing the fucking political game while kids die and a sociopath burns the Constitution in his fireplace..

If ANYONE wants to know why progressives are leaving The Good Ship Democrat in numbers and looking for real alternatives, just read this post.

Unbelieveable.

[LynneSin]

71. So instead we should just rush right thru it, get less than 67 senators

and watch while the war goes on through 2008.

Don't you get it - this isn't about whether or not we impeach. This is about doing the impeachment right so we get 67 senators to vote to remove him. You get 66 senators voting for removal and all you get is a slap on the hands for Bush and the media claiming the impeachment was nothing more than revenge against what happened with Clinton.

And last I checked several committees are already starting their investigations and you can be assured someone like John Conyers - the man who can start the impeachment AND a vocal anti-war, anti-Bush representative - is taking notes for when the impeachment starts.

Impeachment does NOT remove a president from office - it's just the highest slap on the hands you can get before actually removal. You can have a majority of the senators impeach and still the president stays in office. That's what happened to Clinton, only about 55 voted for his removal.

[DancingBear]

102. No - YOU don't get it

You seem to think that "the process" has to wind it's way through some convoluted concept of what you (and other mainstream Dems) think is the political landscape.

What are you afraid of? Someone getting up EVERY DAY and putting IMPEACHABLE offenses on the record?

Someone broaching the subject is committee hearings and in floor speeches?

Someone getting up and going on the offensive and asking why he SHOULDN'T be impeached?

Why not bring a constitutional scholar before the House and have him/her testify. You want to start dialog? THAT will start dialog.

No, instead you prefer to WAIT, then count heads after WAITING is done and say "gee, I guess we WAITED too long."

Oh, I forget. Conyers will lead us. Oh, sure. Did you happen to see Pelosi's latest comments on funding the war? Conyers has about as much of a chance of bringing impeachment to the floor as I have of turning 25 tomorrow.

Conyers is window dressing for the left and the gullible suck it up. Same with Kucinich - they are there to show "progressives" how "progressive" the Democratic party is. It is a sham - always has been, always will be. You don't think Pelosi KNOWS what Bush did? Hell, I know it, you know it -these things he has done couldn't be more impeachable if he admitted them on live TV. Oh, check that - he has - followed by a hearty "fuck you" to anyone who thinks they can stop him. If you think Pelosi is going to then please, buy my bridge.

Oh, and screw the media. Now we are worried about the media? Oh yes, I quiver and quake that they might slap the dreaded "revenge" label on me. Maybe the kid who is still alive today might think differently. Oh well, let him die tomorrow, lest we be labeled.

The problem, as always, lies in the milquetoast Democrats, but more importantly with folks like yourself who legitimize this behavior by couching it in the tired old bromide "that's the way things are done." No, that is the way you ALLOW things to be done. If the Woolsey /Lee bill doesn't get passed (and it won't) you should disavow every last one of the cowards who refuse to put a stop to the slaughter. Instead, you (speaking as a whole) will find yet another way to rationalize it, and another mother will sit at a graveside and wonder why nobody even tried.

Your only hope - and I grant you that it is very plausible - is that Bush fucks up so badly that the stench of his very being will drive voters to call for his ouster. But how sad a day will that be, as those we counted on were too timid to act, and the people who they refused to heed finally had to take them by the scruff of the neck, tie broomsticks to their backs and say "we have given you a spine - now go."

If you don't try and stop this carnage now, or begin to work with folks who will take a stand on principle instead of of counting the house, then shame on you. The next dead kid is one too many.

P.S. The Clinton impeachment was pandering to a base. This impeachment is stopping a lunatic. Don't even pretend they are the same thing. In this case, people die.

[EFerrari]

106. The next kid dead is one too many.

Yes.

Exactly.

[GOTV]

136. Too many for you and me but not for others unfortunately...

... it doesn't appear that we've convinced enough of the public or the Senate that enough is enough.

And that is the reason impeachment cannot start today. It will either take more dead kids, or more crimes to make impeachment feasible.

[GOTV]

72. We need enough Americans to die to convince 67 Senators. Until that happens Impeachment wont stop W

Maybe you don't understand how impeachment works.

Impeachment without 67 Senators to convict stops nothing.

That's the way it works. You can't count dead Americans, you count Senators. I mean, that's the way you do it if you really want to stop W.

[LynneSin]

76. Isn't that a really crappy concept

But that's what it is.

When S.S. Bushtanic hits the iceberg it'll be the republicans manning the lifeboats first

[Leopolds Ghost]

121. It's the same concept some "anti-war" folks falsely held: "When the body bags start coming home..."

No, the purpose of defeating Bush is to STOP those people from dying, otherwise I don't really care about the agenda of those who see it differently.

BTW there will be no impeachment, because the investigations that are ongoing are not structured in a way capable of leading to impeachment.

They are not an inquiry into impeachable offenses.

The offenses we know about are public knowledge to the media elite and the NYT just wrote an editorial saying that the Wiretapping problem, for one, is SOLVED by the recent FISA verdict because they are now LEGAL.

They didn't convict the nation's banks for overstepping banking deregulation in the late 90's by forming shell companies in ANTICIPATION of being allowed to own securities corporations for the first time since 1929. That was public criminality. If it appears on TV, the American public will condone it (so long as children or animals are not hurt).

That is how the mediocracy operates.

[GOTV]

130. I never said dead Americans WOULD convince Senators...

... My point, which I guess you missed, is that counting Senators in the count that counts, counting dead Americans will not get us closer to impeachment.

[Leopolds Ghost]

122. It's the same concept held by a few who were "anti-war": "When the body bags start comin home..."

No, the purpose of defeating Bush is to STOP those people from dying, otherwise I don't really care about the agenda of those who see it differently.

BTW there will be no impeachment, because the investigations that are ongoing are not structured in a way capable of leading to impeachment.

They are not an inquiry into impeachable offenses.

The offenses we know about are public knowledge to the media elite and the NYT just wrote an editorial saying that the Wiretapping problem, for one, is SOLVED by the recent FISA verdict because they are now LEGAL.

They didn't convict the nation's banks for overstepping banking deregulation in the late 90's by forming shell companies in ANTICIPATION of being allowed to own securities corporations for the first time since 1929. That was public criminality. If it appears on TV, the American public will condone it (so long as children or animals are not hurt).

That is how the mediocracy operates.

[Tom Joad]

88. Pelosi does not want to begin the process. Ever.

It's not about voting in the House to impeach today and send it to the senate. It is about beginning the process. Pelosi opposes beginninga that process.

I think you need to listen to her words, and not imagine what you want to hear.

If impeachment happens, it will be because the people demanded it.

If defunding the war happens, it will be because the people demanded. it.

[DancingBear]

103. Tom - see #102

We have many eyes to try and open, and I'll keep trying no matter what.

[omega minimo]

92. Clinton served his full term because the IMPEACHMENT of him was bogus

I'm not gonna argue the strawman of your "reactionary" OP-- (except to agree with those here who understand that no IMPEACHMENT is ever a "slap on the wrist.")

simple point:

Using the totally bogus, illegitimate and pathetic IMPEACHMENT of Clinton in comparison to any actual, valid IMPEACHMENT is a mistake.

:patriot:

[pnwmom]

99. Wrong. He served the full term because the Senate failed to convict.

It wouldn't have mattered how bogus the charges were. It's political. Either you have the votes, or you don't.

And at this point, we don't have 67 votes in the Senate for conviction.

[omega minimo]

101. The Senate didn't convict because the IMPEACHMENT was totally bogus

:hi:

pnwmom, could you explain how you figure "It wouldn't have mattered how bogus the charges were."

I don't get that. Help us understand better how the logic is just cut and dry numbers and doesn't involve the actual, ya know, high crimes and misdemeanors. Especially since the votes depend on the charges. The testimony. The hearings. This is why no one can predict or votecount the outcome beforehand. Rilly.

Do you remember Watergate or the non-IMPEACHMENT of Reagan?

(a reminder I'm not arguing the OP's strawman--- thanks)

[pnwmom]

108. Did the bogus nature of the charges against BC prevent the House from

voting for his impeachment?

No. The House was controlled by Republicans, who voted to impeach Clinton for purely political reasons. What I meant by "It wouldn't have mattered how bogus the charges were" is that, IF the Republicans had had a 67 vote majority in the Senate, Clinton could have been removed from office -- no matter how insignificant the charges were.

I remember Watergate all too well. Nixon resigned when the Democrats AND Republicans came to him and made it clear that they would join together to put him out of office. We're not at that point with Bush. We don't have enough Republicans yet. Maybe we will, as a result of investigations. But that's where we should be concentrating now -- not on premature calls for impeachment.

[B Calm]

111. Actually, the impeachment of President Clinton was to honor him

as a brave man that wouldn’t resign, but instead stood up and stared into the face of vindictive, corrupt, hypocritical, political right-wing smear mongers who tried and failed to undermine democracy.

[pnwmom]

137. True. And so it backfired on the Repubs. n/t

[B Calm]

141. Yes, it backfired on them. They thought he would act like a guilty

man and resign. That said, I do think Bush would resign because he knows he's guilty!

[pnwmom]

142. I'm not sure that he's mentally healthy enough to know he's guilty. n/t

[B Calm]

145. Good point, but unlike the impeachment of President Clinton they

will have to find George guilty and remove him from office.

[bobbolink]

95. Have you ever read any of H2OMan's threads on impeachment?

Have you ever read any of the excellent articles on WHY WE MUST IMPEACH?

This is great fear-mongering.

[pnwmom]

100. I've read them, and I still agree with LynneSin. She's not fear-mongering,

she's practical and realistic.

It is premature to call for impeachment because we don't have the votes for conviction. A "not guilty" vote will vindicate Bush, not shame him.

Let's get on with the investigations. When enough has been dug up, we might have more than the 67 votes -- but we don't now.

[bobbolink]

127. Fear mongering.

It's like worrying about a jury not convicting a rapist.

It doesn't mean you don't draw up charges and have a trial.

Orrrrr, maybe you think OJ should have never been brought to trial, since he got off?

[LynneSin]

105. I have never said we shouldn't impeach

I also don't believe we should back down with we the people's push to impeach.

I just get frustrated when I see these Anti-Pelosi threads and question her as to why the impeachment isn't happening now.

It's simple - they don't have the votes to get rid of him. Impeachment is a slap on the wrist - we need him out of office and preferably heading to a criminal court.

And when the investigations opens up the Pandora's Box of this regime, Republican Senators will jump ship to save their own careers. Because there 21 of them up for re-election in 2008.

We have to force the investigation but if Conyers starts the impeachment proceedings too early we'll lose them and then we're stuck

[bobbolink]

128. You can be frustrated all you wish.

What Pelosi did was DUMB, and against the will of the people.

I have politicians I really like, too, but it doesn't mean I don't call them on stoooopid moves.

I'm so sick of this divorcing investigations from impeachment that I'm not even going to comment on that. Clearly, you don't remember Watergate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. Bbbbut We Haven't Counted The Vvvotes! How Do You Know Huh? NO ONE KNOWS!!! Roaarrrr! Block Block

:rofl:

On a serious note:

Very well said. Very well said indeed.

It is refreshing to come across logical reasoning on the subject rather than some of the reactionary strawmen that others put forth.

:toast:

[meldroc]

107. We probably can't get enough votes to remove Bush. Impeach Gonzales?

After Alberto Gonzales' assertion that not everyone has habeas corpus rights, in the face of the Constitution's clause stating habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in times of invasion or rebellion, you think we can get enough votes in Congress to remove him from office?

It will be easier to make an example of Gonzales than it would to be to impeach and remove Bush.

[pnwmom]

109. Hmmm . . . there's a thought. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

110. With all due respect...

I'd rather trust the court of public opinion before writing off the value of impeachment and trial. If I'm wrong then the public deserves the worst president and congress and supreme court ever. Any OJ fans out there?

[halobeam]

119. I can think of two hearings that shined a nice bright light on this admin.

Last weeks hearing which questioned Rice for a nice long time (never long enough in my book), but it showed a lot of people some truths about this lying administration.

This weeks hearing in which our AG Gonzales showed just who he represents. Not to mention his twisted, subverted interpretation of the Constitution. It was quite an unveiling to many who probably gave this idiot the benefit of the doubt.

As hearings continue, additional truths will come out, giving us more support (in votes) in the senate for impeachment. JMHO

[yurbud]

126. one investigation will make impeachment take care of itself--2001 Cheney Energy Task Force

With subpoenas and testimony under oath from all participants.

Even better, but less likely, would be a 9/11 investigation with all testimony under oath and no one dismissed until accurate testimony given about every single one of the Jersey Girls testimony.

[Zhade]

129. Why are you repeating an already-corrected misstatement?

Impeachment begins with investigations - period. That's the way it works.

So "encourage investigation and trust me, the impeachment AND removal will follow" makes no sense. Pushing for impeachment IS pushing for investigations.

Please stop propping up the erroneous thinking that asking for impeachment doesn't include investigations first.

[NNN0LHI]

135. I trust you on this n/t

[sendero]

138. I basically agree...

... I want impeachment so bad I can taste it. There are other things I want as well. But I've learned over the years that "we should make no wine before its time" :)

Bush's support base is eroding like a flooded delta. It, along with support for this "war" have been dropping steadily for over a year, and they will continue to drop.

Many Republicans are realizing that Bush will be the end of their influence for a very long time. Soon, a critical mass of public and congressional impetus to get this moron out of there will be great enough, and it will be time to act.

I've been watching Pelosi and I don't think she is a pandering weakling like some here seem to think. She will strike when the iron is hot, and not before.

Maturity is understanding that instant gratification is generally too costly or not even possible. When the political will of the nation matches ours, then and only then will it be time to play the I card.

[NotGivingUp]

140. he's the biggest goddam criminal alive today...impeach now..which INCLUDES investigation

[xultar]

143. GREAT POST!!!!

[BlooInBloo]

144. Sheesh. Fight the fights that are worth fighting - not *just* the ones you think you can win...

... Pursuing the latter over the former is, of course, one way to be nothing more than a coward.


EDIT: Yes, I have disagreed. Hence I must be banned from the thread.