Impeachment 101: We Would Need 2/3 of Senate (67 Votes) To Remove Bush

[orleans]

yes, we all want bush AND cheney impeached. and it would be great if conyers introduced articles of impeachment. because we hold a "simple" majority in the house chances are pretty good they would be impeached. (clinton was impeached. but he was not "convicted"

"The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton on December 19, 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (voting 228-206) and obstruction of justice (221-212). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Paula Jones case (205-229), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (148-285). The Senate impeachment trial lasted from January 7, 1999 until February 12. No witnesses were called during the trial. A two-thirds majority, 67 votes, would have been necessary to remove the President from office. Both charges were defeated: perjury (45-55) and obstruction of justice (50-50)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

i say "chances are pretty good" that they could be impeached in the house--because we hold the majority, obviously--however, not all the dems in the house are liberal or moderate (i don't think). some are rather conservative dems.

to impeach these fuckers is the right/proper/moral/constitutional thing to do (even though republicans would be screaming that it was just payback for them impeaching clinton).

but we need 67 senate votes to remove their asses from office. and at this point i don't think we'd come anywhere close to that "super majority". unfortunately.

what if...

what if we start lower on the food chain. hold the lower freaks accountable. we have to get the rest of the country behind this impeachment idea--in order to get that super majority for removal from office. that's the only way the senate would vote to "convict" the bastards (and hopefully remove them)

and to get the country behind it would be by exposing all the crimes that have been committed, piece by piece, by frying the smaller fish first. when the truth is given the light of day the public would see how unfit these people are to be holding position in the white house.

in his article on december 15, john dean said:
"Getting the necessary two-thirds super majority in support of impeachment in today's Senate, which is virtually evenly-divided politically, is simply not possible. With forty-nine senators of the 110th Congress members in good standing with the Republican Party, and most of them rock-ribbed conservatives, even if the House produced evidence of Cheney personally water-boarding "Gitmo" detainees in the basement of his home at the Naval Observatory, with Bush looking on approvingly, there are more than thirty-three GOP Senators who still would not vote to convict. (Senate Republicans who have no problem with torture, or with removing the right to habeas corpus, and who refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever of Bush or Cheney, are hardly going to remove these men for actions in which they too are complicit.)"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html

so...at this point....should we do it anyway? should we impeach them in the house even though they will be acquitted in the senate?

or

should we wait to impeach, with the possibility that down the road we will get a super majority in the senate to remove them from office?

or

should we begin by impeaching the smaller fish first? (condi, gonzales, rumsfuck--maybe even powell)

[David__77]

1. If the East German parliament voted to abolish their system, anything is possible.

The key is to maintain a mass movement ad apply maximum pressure. If the pressure builds to a certain level, and the cost of maintaining the current regime becomes high enough, things will indeed happen. We are far from that point - make no mistake. But the way to get there is not by attacking legitimate political demands of the people.

[tblue]

2. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger, but this is what I heard on some AAR show

The logic that Pelosi considered in saying impeachment is 'off the table' went something like this:

It would take at least a year to implement an impeachment in the House, after that point the Senate will have to vote to remove * from office. By then, * will have only 1 year left to serve. and the General Election will be in full swing. It will be next to impossible to get the votes so close to the end of his term. Practically speaking, the odds are hugely against a successful outcome. And, a failed attempt at removing * from office will be hung around the Democratic Party's neck like a huge nasty albatross right smack in the middle of the '08 election season.

That's the thinking. I want impeachment as much as anybody. I want to stop * in his tracks, like, yesterday. But it doesn' t look like pursuing it will do us any good, and could jeopardize our retaining control of Congress. We could lose everything.

[David__77]

3. I want the people to demand removal of Bush, but...

...I freely admit that I would not advise Democrats in congress to intiate this at present. Neither should they strenuously defuse such talk.

[orleans]

4. i was thinking that too--but then i compared this to clinton

and it was the pukes in the house majority who impeached him and the puke senate majority who acquitted him. and then a puke took over the white house.

so, i'm thinking even if he bush gets acquitted in the dem majority senate why couldn't we still get a dem in the white house?

at least bush would be smeared for what he did. rather than ignored for what he did.

[ccpup]

15. Bush wouldn't be smeared

in some people's minds. There are those who are angry with him now who would then feel sorry for him if those "mean Democrats" were getting "revenge" for Clinton's Impeachment by impeaching Bush. I know ... it's FUBAR, but there are those who would feel sorry for the little tyke! It's enough to get some of those fence sitters back onto his side, if you will.

Best we let him continue to dig his own hole which he'll then putrify in under the scornful, judgemental, displeased Eye of History. The Dems in control can now work to scale back and even reverse some of his more egregious Civil Liberties violations and hopefully -- I hope, I hope! -- bring our troops home despite the temper tantrums we're sure to hear from baby bush and his spoiled ilk.

[calimary]

61. It is SO CRITICALLY important to get IMPEACHMENT on bush's record

for all of history, for ever and ever and ever. That's the kind of universal black eye he needs on his record to make even a particle's worth of difference, to make the kind of statement we NEED to make as Americans outraged about his flagrant violations of our laws and the trashing of our Constitution. This guy needs to be told "NO!" and taken straight out to the woodshed. PERIOD.

If he's allowed to get away with it, ANY president in the future who wants to game the system, wipe his ass with the Constitution, and spit on our laws has only to point to bush as the precedent. Well, HE did it. That means I can, too. And that must NOT be allowed to happen. bush must not get out of this unblemished. If he does, he'll regard it as a victory, and there are way too many deluded and gullible people willing to buy in and go along with it. It will be VERY easy to rationalize: "hmmm... no punishment? Hmmm... must not really have been wrong, then."

BTW, it's bullshit to think that somehow we might start lower on the food chain and IMPEACH some midlevel schmuck and think we can work our way up. If you think there's a concern about a public outcry of "ENOUGH ALREADY," THAT would do it. Public patience goes only so far. We HAVE to shoot for the moon.

[neoblues]

5. Change the rules...

Perhaps the Congress, if it can't or won't seek impeachment for the reasons that it's too difficult or time consuming or whatever, perhaps they should seek to change the rules.

This "President", more than any other, deserves impeachment (and that's just to start with). If the rules don't allow for effective impeachment of this one, then rules themselves are wrong. Though impeachment is deserved, perhaps some other means for removing a President (or any other high office) could be considered; some sort of referendum allowing for a vote of confidence the consequences of which would be either to have the individual step down--or better yet, a "quick" general election to replace a whole administration.

Of course, amending the Constitution is probably too difficult (and face the same Republican opposition)--even if enough people could have the courage to consider such a thing... so obviously, such an effort is beyond the realm of possibility.

Maybe such a thing is unnecessary; maybe I feel we need such a mechanism just because we have such a large number of Republicans with their twisted view of reality, delusions and belief in both their righteousness/infallibility and that the ends justify the means. After all, impeachment itself would work if more people were rational, honest and willing to face the truth...

So, nevermind...

[tblue]

6. Like a vote for censure? That at least makes the statement that * engaged in wrongdoing

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

8. Censure is awesome

Censure says what the country really thinks ("Yes, George, you're a criminal dunce"), its publicly humiliating, and it can pass.

People want him punished, they don't want government to come to a standstill.

[ClassWarrior]

22. "We could lose everything" by standing strong for justice and...

...accountability from our President??

:crazy:

Whatever you say, pal.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

23. .

[AZBlue]

26. That makes sense unfortunately. So how else can he be held accountable?

I'd rather even see him and his cronies go to jail, whether or not it's after his term has ended, than impeached. That's a harsher punishment.

[Senator]

30. That's not "thinking," but rather Rationalizing for Inaction

And a Self-Defeating Prophecy.

This is what rationalization looks like. You only need ask yourself "What's the evidence that any of those claims true?" There is none. For most of these whines, any evidence that exists undermines the irrational fear.

Whether they are simply fearing fear itself, or willfully failing to stop the ongoing torture (and consequently committing war crimes themselves), is really unknowable -- perhaps even by them.

But the reason for inaction is irrelevant.

Only Impeachment ... can acquit them of complicity with the regime's crimes.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

51. I think I've got the jist now

Everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a coward/and or traitor.

Read your blog.

I would however, like a dialogue where you address the thinking of those that disagree with you with something other than, "that's rationalaztion. Impeachment is the only answer".

Starting with how this is to be pitched to moderate Democrats. Try not using "Nazi Germany", or "American war crimes", as its often a turnoff to, well, 95% of voters.

[Senator]

55. I'm sorry the truth bothers you so much

It bothers me as well. But it is the attitude that something of this level of importance needs to be "pitched to moderate Democrats" that is the core of our problem. The public, including "moderate Democrats" (whatever that means), know when they're being manipulated by pitches. That's why they see little difference between the DC Dem strategerists and the neofascists.

Ironically, they've got no problem with the real truth. They already want the regime removed. This "it was all anti-war" propaganda only serves to deflect from the real message of the election, which was specifically anti-bush and not "for" anything in particular. But then again they also don't ignore the crimes the regime has already admitted to -- illegal spying and Geneva violations -- for some political gain or because they're too scary. The public sees them for what they are -- unforgivable.

And I'd be happy to respond to any "thinking" that is backed up with some evidence of connection to reality. So give me some evidence that "95% of the voters," or even 50% are going to "turned off" (again, whatever that means) by being told the truth and having their Constitution defended, even in vain, and I'll be happy to discuss it.

--

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

64. I'll type this in code

..lest it be intercepted, and all of us end up in shallow graves tomorrow. Worse than Nazi Germany, as you no doubt well remember.

There's nothing to reply to here, unless we bow to your assertion that the public is writhing in a state of near armed revolt just waiting for impeachment, and the only thing to stop it is the cowardly Democratic congress and the Bush enablers on message boards on the internet.

I will sit, a cowardly agent of Karl Rove to the end, possibly having a snack and watching some Space Ghost before bed. Remember, don't sleep twice in the same spot, and be ready to come at a moments notice when the resistance calls on you.

[Senator]

74. Well, the dialog you requested can't happen with no de-coder ring

But I await no call. Nor do I see a reason for the paranoia you seem so quick to project.

In any case, thanks for stepping aside. It's a good bit more help than "our leadership" provides.

(Ought to change the sig line though, no? Or is that in code too?)

--

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

79. blah blah blah blah x infinity

Being the last man standing in a circle jerk doesn't make you the winner, dude.

[Senator]

80. Now that's more like code

But it's not competition. No wagering please.

--

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

7. The case against impeachment

But the problem is, even your "Conyers puts forward the articles and we get a moral victory" argument doesn't work: Clinton was impeached by a Republican house moving in near lockstep with it's leadership. The idea that there isn't enough Democrats in the House right now who would jump ship at the mearest idea of impeachment. Do you think Schuler, Lampson, Boyda, Space, et. al, all coming from districts that just gave the Democrats the nearest of lookins (and mostly because they're sick of their former Republican reps being such viscious, corrupt, partisan creatures), are going to relish the thought of a re-election campaign under the banner of, "and then I didn't act on 'health care/minimum wage/higher education', because I was too busy fighting a no win impeachment battle"? Fat fucking chance.

Then, as you point out, show me the 16 turn coat Republican senators. And Bush is guilty, then so is Cheney. Show me the 16 Republican senators just aching for President Nancy Pelosi. Lets assume that the usual suspects (The Lieb, Nelson, Carper), wouldn't immediatley run in fucking horror. We're going past the moderate core of the Maine senators, Spector, maybe Allard and Smith. Maybe John McCain, while running for president, would like to get in on shaming the party he's running under. Hey, we're in fantasy land, maybe Jesus appears in Sam Brownback's soup, and tells him Bush has got to go. I couldn't name five, even of the ultra vulnerable 2008 crowd, Repulican senators willing to go for fucking their own party over.

We're going to spend the next two years bleeding the Republican party in one investigation after another, brining every ugly thing they've done for the last eight years under the microscope. Its going to win us seats, possibly transform the senate makeup to 'hard Democrat' for the next decade or more. We've got the strongest field of Democratic presidential hopefuls we've had since probably 1992 about to go up against the weakest field of Republicans since Wendell Wilkie got electoraly sodomized by FDR. That's Bush's legacy at this point: the death of the GOP.

He's going to go down as worse than Caligula at this point. Nobody should give him a chance to play the victim, and maybe give him a chance to salvage some of the vile shit he wants to pass off as his gift to this country.

[orleans]

9. well put but tragic isn't it? if anyone deserves to be impeached it's

this criminal enterprise ruining this country

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

44. I'm not saying it doesn't suck.

But I am saying I'd rather President (insert pet candidate name here) rolling back this nonsense with a swipe of his/her/it's pen than president McCain declaring our troops will be out of Iran by 2019 at the latest (and he really means it this time!).

[onenote]

11. good analysis

[Senator]

37. That's not a "case" -- just more rationalizing

(First, welcome to DU)

Most of your "case" boils down to "don't fight unless you know you can win." This is a common political version of the Powell Doctrine, which I can never quite distinguish substantively from formalized cowardice. Even if you think every Republican is willing to approve admitted war crimes (even though Warner, McCain, and Graham have already refuse), that doesn't render impeachment merely a "moral victory."

Failure to impeach makes "our side" (and by extension the American People) complicit with the crimes of the regime. It is tacit approval -- and a war crime in itself. Standing to accuse (impeach) when warranted is a duty, not an option.

But some of the things you presume are just flat wrong. He is decidedly not "going to go down as worse than Caligula at this point." He's going to dance off to Texas saying "if I did anything so wrong, why didn't they impeach me?" They've been spinning Reagan's legacy that way for decades.

The next election will have no domestic accomplishments to run on. The "rule by signing statement" that the LieberDems refuse to stand up to will insure that. And the electorate isn't interested in what you "act on" but don't deliver. The same is true for endless, open-ended investigative hearings. They're just boring. No one outside the beltway (and DU) cares.

And since you insist on casting everything in terms of the '08 Horserace, your presumptions aren't correct there either. It matters little who the candidates are. As Clinton says, for president the public will continue to opt for "strong and wrong over weak and right."

Only Impeachment can alter the near-permanent perception of the Dems as weak. It is the only substantive action at their disposal really. The rest is just masturbatory blather that the public sees for what it is.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

43. fight on, internet warrior

"Formalized cowardice" my ass, dude.

What you failed to address in that really awesome post about those of us not willing to jump on the "impeachment via internet message board" bandwagon, is any of the ideas I offered up.

Who is going to lead the impeachment movement?
What is going to keep newly elected Democrats and those in unsafe seats from bolting?
Which moderate Republicans are going to betray their party?
Which states will we reaise our chances of winning in by scuttling all other priorities to focus on impeachment?

You've got a lot of big talk about your high moral purpose, and people who've raised the legitamate question of, "how in the world would this all be possible?", get drowned in a great big vat of, "nothing matters except believing, Tink!"

No major elected official in our party (the sellouts! the fools! the unbelievers!), is talking about impeachment. I suggest rather than banter with obvious Karl Rover agents like me, you begin getting in place primary challenges for Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, and if you have time Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Paul Wellstone, Dick Durbin, well... you get the idea. If an obvious agent of appeasement like Paul Wellstone can still reside in this party, than obviously, we all might as well get on the Sam Brownback train now.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

45. Forget I said anything

We are now worse than either Nazi Germany or The Evil Empire because we have combined the worst elements of both.

Wow.

[Senator]

56. Yes, wow

And you haven't said anything yet. Merely fretted about things.

There is a large difference between the two.

--

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

63. Alright

You're not going to be hauled out in the middle of the night tonight and executed for your political beliefs. That's a pretty big difference right there. Why, big enough to call the statement what it is, which is silly.

I'd say you'd cheapened your argument, but that's wrong, as you didn't have one to begin with. It's you, the lone voice of freedom, versus the complacent sheep. You're wasting your time not setting up primary challenges to all the people in congress who lack your revolutionary fervor talking to me.

[w4rma]

10. Agreed. Toast all the little people who have aided and abetted the crimes. Isolate Bush/Cheney. (nt)

[intaglio]

12. Does the House need to go through evidentiary proceedures?

Looking at WIKI all it needs to do is to present articles of impeachment to the Senate which then proceeds with a trial. There is the fact 67 is not the minimum number of votes which could Impeach, that is only 34 (The senate would be quorate for a vote of impeachment with 51 members present). For a "fast track" impeachment to be feasible the charge would have to be simple and easily proven. For practicality it would have to be so heinious that a large number of Republican Senators would vote for it.

In light of this may I suggest the charge be breach of the Oath of Office, lets face it he has not "defended the Constitution of the United States of America"

[A wise Man]

13. The most amazing aspects

of this impeachment scenario is that it seems that there are too many afraid to do the right thing when it comes to justice and the threat to the Constitution.
We analyze the possibilities of losing, rather than the acknowledgment of truth
and the deaths of our troops who have and will die for the lies of Bush. Bush invaded Iraq on this lie, not the other way around.

The 9/11 attack has never been truly investigated, as our rights are being diminished bit by bit with lies, deceit and excuses. We the people put the Dem's in power to do what is right for the country and to clean up the mess the re thugs have made. If we can't impeach these criminals, then our so call justice system must be re-examined.

I would like an investigation of treason from the 2000 election coup d'etat, 9/11
and this war. An investigation of this sort would engage a trial of every one of these hoodlums whether they are in office or not. In that way it would never get them off the hook and our country will have its justice.

[Mikey929]

14. Stop wasting time

I don't mean you. I mean the red-meat DU'ers who want nothing else but the head of Bush and Cheney on sticks outside the white house. Anger is blinding you. Vengeance is blinding you. I want to wash my hands of the whole mess and let our leaders do what is necessary to make this country better. So enough with this IMPEACHMENT B.S. It isn't going to happen. They will be gone in two years.

[ShortnFiery]

16. The investigations and process can go on ... if Rep. can begin the process

for a BJ among consenting adults because wingers shriek for such goings on in The Oval Office, then WE can begin investigations and perhaps, follow through with the initial proceedings. It's the process that will uncover their crimes and leave the door open to eventually send them to The Hague.

No Slack for War Criminals! :grr:

[Mikey929]

17. Come on

Sorry, but they are not war criminals and you are never ever going to convince the public that they are. They lied about the reasons for the war, but that does not make them war criminals, i.e., intentionally targeting civilians, using nerve gas, etc. So the notion that you can get some traction on the war criminal angle is just fantasy land.

And for the record, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court proceeding, not because he got a BJ in the oval office. He committed perjury to defend a sexual harassment lawsuit. Sorry, but the attorney in me likes to see accuracy when legal arguments are made.

[ShortnFiery]

18. They are War Criminals because they lied us into a war.

Yes, IMO they are exactly that ... how many innocent civilians have died for this lie? How many of our beloved troops have given their lives in vain? How many are scarred physically? Emotionally?

No doubt, they cherry picked the intelligence. Why the hell do you think Cheney was commuting back and forth to Foggy Bottom almost every DAMN day during the run up to the Iraqi invasion?

No, people don't want to believe that our Leaders are more interested in their large corporations benefiting from war profiteering than the welfare of the troops. However, the foregoing is exactly why we are still in Iraq ... and why we will stay UNLESS some brave legislators choose to serve the people before their careers in the Congress.

Yes, investigate fully and begin impeachment proceedings. We need "the truth" in order to heal. Otherwise our grandchildren may have to face another horrific period that we are enduring now. After Watergate these criminals went in the cracks and now have resurfaced. Let's not let a new batch go underground again?

Investigate and Impeach, with extreme prejudice. :thumbsup:

[onenote]

24. welcome to the universe of reality based DUers

We're here, but sometimes its hard to find us!!

[Mikey929]

27. Thanks

I appreciate the kind words. Still trying to tread the fine line between speaking my mind and trying not to insult those with different beliefs. And I'm still trying to sort out the difference between Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives. I'm a Dem, but certainly don't subscribe to some of the hard-left ideas on here, i.e., let's send Bush to Abu Graib. But hey -- I've always liked Joe Lieberman, which I know will not get me many fans around here.

Is there a recognized definition of liberal versus progressive?

[orleans]

28. here's a defination by david sirota on hufpo

"I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"

"The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-bet_b_9140.html

check it out--there's more:

"Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

"We can see a good example of this hestitation from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his "health care to hybrids" proposal. As the Detroit News reports, Obama is calling "for using government money to relieve Detroit automakers of some of their staggering health care obligations if they commit to improving fuel economy by 3 percent a year for 15 years."

"Here's the thing - we all want to see autoworkers' health care preserved, and we all want to see better fuel efficiency standards for cars. But is this really the road we want to go down as a society? I'd say no. The fact is, the auto industry should be forced to produce more fuel efficient cars through higher government fuel efficiency mandates, without taxpayers having to bail out the industry. It's not like those mandates would be asking the industry to do something that doesn't make good business sense - demand for higher fuel-efficiency cars is skyrocketing."

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

50. For serious

I mean, I volunteer in one of the most liberal legislative districts in the country (Washington 43rd, baby), I worked for Dennis Kucinich in 2004, 'fer christ sakes I have a like 25 word 'thank you for writing' note from Noam Chomsky that I treasure... and I appear to be something of a conservative in these parts.

Maybe the internet revolution isn't for me.

[Quantess]

60. If you think that Bush does not deserve impeachment, then,

yes, you are "conservative" in these parts.
Although it should be abundantly clear that "Conservatives" are no longer conservative. They're just big spending assholes known as Neo-Cons.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

62. But, fellow Washington person

I do think he should be impeached, I just don't think that it's viable in any way shape or form. I'd like Larry David to be president, but I'm not going to pretend its going to happen.

[Quantess]

68. okay fellow drunk person.

I wish Larry David was an expected guest, wherever I was.
As you said, you do not think Bush should be impeached.

[Quantess]

70. Sorry, you wrote that * should be impeached.

I somehow missed that (maybe the booze?)

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

65. Though, and as a somewhat dumb afterthought

There's nothing progressive about what goes on in here sometimes. Nancy Boyda went from hero of the Netroots to "Bush enabling fascist" in the course of about four hours. If my view on impeachment is "conservative", then Barbara Boxer and Paul Wellstone might as well be Birchers.

[Quantess]

66. How funny. I just happened to get back from Las Vegas yesterday.

and I'm still reeling it all in.

I don't know what you're talking about.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

67. I don't either

Honestly, what became "I was bored, sick, and needed something to do over a long weekend", has become an hour of my day gouging eyes with some dude on the internet. I have 100 something posts. Madness.

I guess Vegas over Tacoma. Maybe.

[Quantess]

69. I honestly don't give a $hI# how many posts you have.

I've had some "Deleted Posts", yet I'm somehow still a registered DUer.
Please don't gouge your eyes out.
And, if you think Bush has not earned his impeachment, then you are some F*cked up person I have no interest in knowing!

[ShortnFiery]

57. Yes, it's tragic that *the truth* gets lost in what is most beneficial

for our elite legislator's careers and financial best interest. I see little to no moral courage and it makes me ashamed to have Congress members who don't genuinely give a damn about the people they represent IF it will negatively affect their blessed political career. :thumbsdown:

We have War Criminals in our Executive Branch. You don't want to admit it like many right wingers would not permit themselves to entertain for one moment such stark REALITY. That is, the thought that our leaders are corrupt is too discordant to your belief systems. But that is TRUTH and the REAL WORLD. However, I'll grant you that far too often corrupt leaders are not held to task for their crimes. :(

[Fovea]

32. well, the attorney in you doesnt know squat

about what constitutes war crimes.

Also on that list is promoting wars of aggression.

Which, in fact, is the whole point of Bush's unilateralism.

[Mikey929]

72. Thanks

Such a nice comment to wake up to! I didn't profess expertise in war crimes so please educate me. I was only saying there is no way in hell that you are going to convince John and Jane Doe that Bush is a war criminal. That is a fringe argument that will get us no traction whatsoever, and in fact will only create derision and laughter.

BUT: My comment about Clinton stands. He squandered an excellent eight years with his inability to control himself. It's a sad affair. But he was not impeached for getting a BJ.

[Fovea]

75. As an attorney you certainly must be able to do your own research

But you might want to check out (limited exclusively to the charge of fomenting wars of aggression- only one of about 4 counts I think are both applicable and indefensible).


Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-1946.

The Hague Conventions of 1907.
Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

There are several other documents outlining principles relevant to this particular crime, but this may burn up a billable hour or two.

And if my previous comment displeased you, perhaps you might re read your own posts on this thread, and red pencil the ad hominum.

And I would like to finish by saying that I am heartened that you approve of the actions of Kenneth Starr as a valid form of investigation. Let's bring back the Special Prosecutor and go to town!

I believe there is already precedent for 50 Million Dollar Witch hunt. I think we only need half so much to impeach the entire neocon faction of government. And once we are done with that, we turn over the documentation to the Hague as a gesture of good will.

We might even be able to save face with the world that way. Otherwise a very difficult period in international relations is about to ensue. Think Pinochet.

[Quantess]

36. Well, they ARE war criminals, but you have a point nonetheless,

that most Americans will find that too harsh of a description. However...

Bush and Cheney have DEFINITELY committed enough offenses to earn impeachment, and, a larger percentage of Americans support their impeachments than supported Clinton's.

[Fovea]

31. I don't remember putting words in your mouth

Sure I am angry, but if you think I am simply about revenge, you are not reading my posts for content.

And what makes you think Bush will be gone in 2 years?
Show me another part of the constitutional checks and balances he has upheld.

[Mikey929]

33. two years

Of course he will be gone in two years. Get real. Before 2004, I had a friend who believed that Bush would declare martial law and suspend the election. Never happened. My friend never recanted or admitted she overreacted.

So yes, Bush will voluntarily step down at the end of his term, as has every President who preceded him. If you think different, then your tinfoil hat is probably on too tight.

[Gregorian]

35. We're not blinded by vengeance. We're blinded by justice.

Zero tolerance for war mongering. Period.

[LynneSin]

19. Without a doubt we investigate the hell out of the Bush Regime

Trust me, if the crimes are revealed even the republicans will support us

[qwlauren35]

20. Climbing on board...

Today, after hearing that Bush STILL wants a surge, STILL wants increased funding, I'd like to see him gone. I wish I cared how, but I don't. Impeachment is an option. But maybe there is some loony out there who has something else in mind. I won't mourn if it happens that way.

I would not do it myself, I would not encourage anyone else to do so. But if that loony already exists, and whatever happens happens, I'm having a party.

[ShortnFiery]

59. self delete

misinterpretation on my part. :blush:

[Mikey929]

71. WOW

Your post truly makes me sad and upset. As the party of fairness and ideals, I think it is absolutely shocking that you are contemplating such a thing, and that you admit you would have a party if it happened.

Our country is larger than one president. And no one -- I mean no one -- should rejoice in such a circumstance. If you do, then you clearly have no idea about this country or the things it stands for. The oderly transition of power is one of the great hallmarks of this country, and it is exceedingly rare in history.

[ClassWarrior]

21. We win just by bringing up the idea... removal or not.

And besides, if the House holds hearings, and the poop starts hitting the propellor, and the public begins to learn the depth of Administration** crimes, the possibility of removal is SURE to increase by leaps and bounds.

Visualize IMPEACHMENT. Then DO something to make it happen.

NGU.

[Gregorian]

34. I agree.

And the argument that they don't have the time or resources is just bogus. There isn't anything more important than this.


Where's the stinking "zero tolerance" now? Smoke a joint, lose your license. What about kill a nation, walk free? I don't let Bush behavior go unpunished. Period. Follow him for the rest of his life, if that's what it takes. Congress has time for passing laws and impeachment.

[arendt]

25. Need 17 rethugs? Offer amnesty to the first 20. Prosecute the rest...

it would be really fun to watch that!

arendt

[Fovea]

78. Give that man

the complete works of Hannah!

You got it!

[ellisonz]

82. Especially "Between Past and Future"

http://www.amazon.com/Between-Past-Future-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143104810/sr=8-1/qid=1168399630/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-3877401-1088823?ie=UTF8&s=books

Yay, for academics! :headbang:

[Fovea]

86. A lot to be said for Crises of the Republic

Though it may provoke a lot of deja vu.

And yes, I think Hannah was one of the 20 C's great minds.

But I guess everyones favorite is The Origins of Totalitarianism. I know I re read parts of it over and over again.

[ellisonz]

83. Oh how I wish that was probable/possible...

x(

[Imagevision]

29. Only 23 republicans currently support Bush, it isn't impossible, there jobs are on the line also

come 2008

[onenote]

38. only 23 support him in what way?

Link?

[cascadiance]

41. There are LARGE amount of Republican senators up for reelection in 2008...

... I think it's around 22. So there are many more with their jobs on the line than Democrats in the near future! This is why we have the posturing coming from the likes of senators from Maine and Oregon now. If they are put on the line with a compelling public sentiment against Bush's continuing in office, it might be hard for them to choose to lose their jobs if they decide to vote to protect Bush.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

46. People just seem to be tossing off these numbers

Which Republican senators are thinking their vulnerability in 2008 lies in the fact that they're not jumping on the impeachment bandwagon?

[mentalsolstice]

39. Just isn't going to happen...

I'm a retired lawyer, so I'm speaking from the point of view of having first-hand experience in jurisprudence.

1. Investigations: Hopefully, our new Democratic leaders will initiate investigations. However, the 'pukes are lawyering up as we speak. This means that every time they're asked for documents or testimony, their lawyers will make an objection. The cases I've been involved in were piddlin' compared to something of this scope. Unfortunately, I've had cases that took nearly 2 years just to get through the discovery phase. And this isn't as cut and dried as trying to figure out whether some guy lied about getting a BJ. This will involve witnesses and documents that are either under top security or outside of the country.

2. Politics: I don't know if I should even dive in here. Both parties are posturing for 2008. Do I think it's justified? No, but it's a reality.

3. Resources: It will cost millions of dollars to get rid of these guys, plus our gov't will be totally hogtied in the meantime. Ask yourselves, do we really owe it to Katrina victims, the poor, the uninsured, etc. to put impeachment before their needs. The longer we ignore their problems, the harder they'll be to solve. Again, I'm just putting reality out there for consideration.

3. Even if: Even if we could get an impeachment and a conviction, do all of you realize that doesn't necessarily mean any of these dirtbags will go to jail. They'll simply go home to Crawford and Wyoming. That's all. BushCo will simply go back to brush clearing and quail hunting. And it's likely they would go home only mere weeks or months before the end of their terms. There will have to be subsequent criminal prosecutions to send them to jail (provided they're not pardoned first).

All that said, I'm for investigating the hell out of them, but I have to be realistic about the process. No doubt, my anger has the heat of a 1000 white suns when I think about Lil' Boots going home to Crawford in 2009, and insulating himself from all the damage he's done. I hope the war crimes tribunal can find a way to get him...maybe not with war crimes per se, but perhaps they can charge him with crimes against peace, or crimes against humanity.

That's just my take. Maybe I'll be proven wrong...who knows...

[Senator]

40. Reality 101: The "2/3 Needed" excuse is just the "lynch mob" rationalzation

The notion that we shouldn't arrest and prosecute lynchings because the all-white juries will never convict. It makes one part of the mob after the fact.

But the reality is not so simple. The reality is that war crimes are on the table. Warner, McCain, and Graham have already refused to become party to "redefining" Geneva. And if the Repubs are smart, they'll opt not to publicly defend war criminals and then try to get re-elected on that record.

The political reality is that it need never get to the Senate trial stage, and likely wouldn't. Should the LieberDems decide to live up to oaths they just took, the Repubs would easily arrange a "Nixon option" that replaces Cheney prior to a bushkid resignation. Do you imagine that they'd rather risk a Pelosi presidency, even for a week?

Only Impeachment... can put the GOP on the run for a change.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[ellisonz]

84. "Impeachment IS our positive agenda" is an oxymoron.

Sorry.

Restoring truth and freedom in America is our positive agenda.

[Senator]

85. Sorry, but that's a euphemism not an agenda

An agenda has action items on it.

Impeachment is the only action that can "restore truth and freedom in America" -- or accomplish anything else positive.

Unless of course someone has the magic potion to circumvent "rule by signing statement."

--

[LeftCoast]

42. Is it impossible to try them for crimes once they leave office?

I really don't believe there is enough time for impeachment, but I do believe they (Bush, Cheney, et al.) have committed some truly heinous crimes. I'm no lawyer, but I see no reason that they can't be held accountable once they're out of office. I haven't heard anyone talk about this prospect. Does anyone know if it's possible?

[Senator]

58. Not impossible. But even less likely than impeachment.

And impeachment itself could be done in less than a month. Clinton's only took 3 months and that required fact witnesses. On torture and illegal spying the regime has admitted the acts. All that needs to happen is refute their specious claims of "inherent" authority. You either approve of the war crimes and FISA violations or you don't.

But it's extremely unlikely they'd be prosecuted in the US after they leave. Particularly without the accusation (impeachment) having been made. In essence, failing to impeach exonerates them.

It's possible the international community would issue war crime indictments at The Hague, but again, without a public display of support for that inside the US it would seem unlikely. Still, it could be made a real possibility should the continuing antics of the regime succeed in uniting the Arab and Persian world against the US as a rogue state.

--

[leftofthedial]

47. investigate and impeach all of them

current estimates of conviction are irrelevant

if the clear truth is that high crimes and misdemeanors were committed and repukes still vote party line, it will be held against them

it also does not preclude future action against the traitors

impeach now for lies about WMD

impeach later for corruption in Iraq

impeach again for imbezzlement of DOD funds, etc.

[buff2]

48. Bu$h broke the law

Many,many times over. If WE break the law,we have to pay for our crimes. Why does this idiot get a free pass? Fine example HE sets. :argh:

[Bjorn Against]

49. We need to move towards accountability whether we have the votes or not

We certainly have a long list of impeachable offenses to try them under, we need to put the charges in front of the American people and after we have had a good chance to put our case forward we must demand that there is a vote to impeach. We need to put our members of Congress on record, do they support accountability or do they believe the man who calls himself President should be able to commit crimes without consequence? Impeachment hearings would damage Bush whether he is forced out of office or not.

And yes, we can go after the smaller fish first just as long as we go after the big fish eventually.

[FogerRox]

52. Heres a top down chart

Bush & Cheney go to jail.



Bush & Cheney convicted of crimes.

Bush & Cheney undergo a jury trial.

Bush & Cheney removed from office. (Conviction in Senate)

Bush & Cheney impeached. Indicted in House.

Bush & Cheney get investigated. Foundation is built here.


I say start building the foundation .... right now.
If we dont build the foundation we will never get to put the roof shingles on. Well prosecuted criminal cases start with a good foundation. The House DEMs job is to build that foundation, cinder block by cinder block, row by row. If they dont, we slam them good.

I think in the long run many Repubs may see their voters getting pissed off at Bush & Cheney, more & more voters demanding the removal from office means more repub senators will consider voting to remove from office..... if we lay a good foundation, the people may demand it.

SO lets get to mixing some cement.

[orleans]

54. nice chart. i love the top line! n/t

[Imagevision]

53. Only 12 of 49 GOP Senators support Bush's Surge

Bush and McCain will have trouble finding support from more than 12 of the 49 Republican senators when pressing for a surge of 30,000 troops. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, stated in describing the proposal. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq."...
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Robert_Novak_Only_12_of_49_GOP_Senators_support_Bush_s_Surge

[onenote]

73. doesn't translate into support for impeachment

[Fovea]

76. I think it would be more precise to say

that it *may* or *may not* translate into support for impeachment.

To refuse to do the right thing because there is no certainty of success does not do much honor to Americans who gave their lives to defend the constitution of the United States... Just Sayin.

[mmonk]

77. Should we not send a murderer to trial

on the possibility a jury would not convict? Or do you take a murderer to trial and present the evidence you have anyway?

Why should this be looked at in any other way or be any different? The public has a right to know what has happened and the constitution should be defended because it's the oath of office. Otherwise, toss it because we're operating without it.

[talk hard]

81. Maybe after the investigations it will be possible to impeach.