Lobbying for Impeachment: Take along a Big "Clue Stick" !

[pat_k]

Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution. They put torture on the table and made it "fair game" for opposing forces to torture Americans.

Impeachment is our ONLY defense, but the Chicken Littles on the Hill believe the sky will fall if they even utter the word. It's going to take good knock with a big http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cluestick">Clue Stick to wake them up to reality.

There is no substitute for lobbying Members and staffers in person, where we can directly contradict their excuses. A few simple truths and moral principles are the only clue sticks we need to do battle with their baseless fears, assumptions, and rationalizations for inaction.

One of the biggest barriers to impeachment, both inside and outside the beltway bubble, is the widespread, wrong-headed, legalistic view of it.

Clue Stick 1: The Purpose of Impeachment.

• They are Congress, not the Courts.


• Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.


• Impeachment is defensive; not punitive.
  
  We charge Congress with the duty to defend against threats to the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to remove a threat by removing an official's power to harm. This is the first, and most urgent, priority.
  
  Retribution for violations of U.S. Code and International Law is for the Courts (both here and at the Hague), not Congress.


• Impeachment is bound only by the intentionally vague guidance provided by our Constitution; judicial processes are bound by our substantial body of written law and precedent.
  
  Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
  
  Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.


• The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
  
  
  • In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
    1. depriving a citizen of their rights
    2. releasing a guilty individual
    
    When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
  
  
  • In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
    1. depriving an official of the privilege of power
    2. leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
    
    Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
  
  In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
  
  When we recognize the purpose of impeachment, Clue Stick 2 becomes crystal clear.
  
  Clue Stick 2: Impeachment has been a moral imperative for years.
  
  Bush and Cheney demonstrate their willful intent to nullify the Constitution when they assert the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" that can break the law at its whim.
  
  In their attack on the Constitution, Bush and Cheney are blatantly committing grave violations of law that go far beyond impeachable. They have committed crimes that are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min").
  
  In addition, they violate the sanctity of our civil rights with their criminal spying operation (Title 50, Section 1805).
  
  From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10"> Rationalizing for Inaction on Impeachment:
  
  

  . . .charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.
  
  The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.

[Demeter]

1. k&r Excellent post!

[Senator]

2. K&R

[Luckyduck]

3. K&R

:applause:

[PhilipShore]

4. K/R

:kick:

[chknltl]

5. This chknltl supports impeachment Kand R nt

[pat_k]

13. Love it!

. . .Would it be too much to hope that you are one of the "Chicken Littles on the Hill"?

[chknltl]

63. I live on "a" hill but not "THE" hill...

not sure if that was what you were asking...and if so where you might get that notion. I am just a retired hippy livin' in Washington State. I live on a hill overlooking Commencement Bay. I have been known to write to those who work on THE Hill...(often). I have gotten responses on a rare occasion too, (my treasures). I took the name chknltl because I worry and speak out a lot about what our government has done to it's own people. The depleted uranium oxide poisoning issue is one I get pretty religiously in folks's faces over...so in my way I DO let everyone know that the sky is falling!

My latest version of this stems from the fact that I worry that further 9-11s may be building up. The bfee has done pretty much everything in it's power to give the citizens in the Middle East an anger strong enough to strap on a wmd and take a stroll over through our neighborhood again. We in the DU debate the finer nuances of impeachment often and yet we hardly ever take into consideration those who our government has victimized. Worse yet we never consider that by giving bushco a pass for these crimes that we are in reality placing our safety in the hands of those we have come to mistrust so strongly. Tell me this: Do YOU TRUST BUSHCO to prevent further 9-11s here on our shores knowing what you know about their ways and knowing how hard those same bastards have endeavored to cultivate even more hatred against us over in the Middle East? In essence the bushbastards have weakened our defenses while strengthening the armies of terrorists, both by swelling their ranks and by stimulating their reasons to fear us. An after the fact I TOLD YOU SO does not cut it for this chicken-little... NOT AT ALL

[pat_k]

66. Would have loved to see a congresscritter

. . ."come out" for impeachment on DU. As improbable as it might be, figured I'd ask. The query was just my wishful thinking in the form of a (not particularly good) joke.

Who knows? A Congressional "chicken little" or two could be lurking around DU.

Re: "we hardly ever take into consideration those who our government has victimized."

My single-minded focus on impeachment is driven by my outrage at the horrors -- known and yet to be discovered -- being committed by the war criminal election thieves who have seized the executive branch. The machinery of the executive branch and the massive power of the American presidency is in the hands of lawless men who believe that their tiny faction has a "right" to impose their will on the rest of us. They nullify the laws we do pass with signing statements; They violate our laws at will; They are destroying the institutions established to execute and enforce existing law; They have no qualms about ignoring or implementing our laws and regulations as they please (directly causing REAL harm, sometimes devastating harm, to countlesss REAL people); They engage government employees in secret criminal operations; They put torture "on the table" and made it "fair game" for opposing forces to torture Americans. . .

The insecurity, violence, death, and chaos that is devastating lives and decimating families in Iraq (highly educated, urban, and suburban people bombed "back to the stone age") is beyond my ability to imagine. But the painful reality is that the United States cannot serve as a positive force under the rule of this rouge regime. Options that would be available to a legitimate American President will remain closed to us.

Bush, Cheney, and their fellow fascists have made it crystal clear that they understand nothing but force. Only impeachment can stop them.

I do not see the purpose of passing more laws for them to violate; of complaining about them (instead of accusing/impeaching); of wagging fingers at them; of making requests of them; of telling them what they "should" do. Pursuing Pelosi's agenda feels like trying to remodel a burning house. Lobbying efforts that call for Members of Congress to fight for principle (e.g., Filibuster Alito; Filibuster the War Criminals Protection Act; fight for believable elections) can be very productive because they provide opportunities to hammer away at their dysfunctional rationalizations -- rationalizations that are keeping them from acting on many things, including impeachment (Can't win, don't fight; the backlash beast will get us. . .)

But, in general, I don't spend much investigating and delving into specific "issues" unless I see a way for the effort to advance impeachment. When we are back on solid ground, I believe the connections we have forged in the fight for our national soul will serve us well as the we call on our leaders to take up the hard work of repairing the damage, extracting us from Iraq, making healthcare a right, ending corporate personhood. . .

As I see it, in the current crisis, the most critical task is to connect with others "on the ground" and figure out effective ways use our power to see that our will is done. (e.g., concrete action through which we remind ourselves, and our representatives, that We the People are the deciders (e.g., http://january6th.org/">the Declaration of Intent project).

The "Only Impeachment" or "Impeachment First" principle does not call on us to abandon the other fights we have undertaken, but it does call on us to find ways to use those fights to support the effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. For more on this see http://january6th.org/impeachment_first.html">Impeachment First (something I wrote about this time last year) or http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/11"> Only Impeachment. Only Impeachment....

BTW, I lived in Seattle in the late '80's. Was there a couple weeks ago for the "artic blast." The weather has truly gone mad.

[chknltl]

68. bookmarked pat_k

Your words alone make this bookmark worthy and I think your links shall provide further wisdom.

I wrote a lengthy response here a bit ago but for whatever reason the DU would not recognize me in order to post it!!!???!!! I hate spending 30 minutes or more on a post only to have it rejected. I'll try again here but I'll leave it short.

We have the same goals here pat_k we travel down differing roads in order to get there. I hope you understand that my path is one of deliberate fear mongering, a tactic that I learned from paying attention to the bushbastards over the last 6 years. I want to help strengthen those voices with my words, I feel that when those voices of WE THE PEOPLE grow in numbers large enough, there will come a tipping point and our congressional leaders will enthusiastically carry out our will. I feel that this is all they are waiting on. (accdg to Randi Rhoads, Jon Conyers all but stated this very thing to the protesters this weekend in Wa. DC...his meaning though was quite plain here: "You have this within your reach"

I honestly feel that America has legitimate fears here yet I am not witnessing those fears reflected in my fellow Americans. Let us both hope that America never joins me in those fears because another 9-11 is successfully launched on us! I feel one is imminent and I do NOT trust bushco to prevent this...even IF I believed for a single second that he and his cronies would WANT to protect us!
c

[pat_k]

83. Reply. . .

. . .was also lost yesterday.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time. Oh well.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. And keep on keepin' on!

[bonito]

6. K&R

[harveyc]

7. Technical question ...

as I understand it, a court in Detroit found that the government was in violation of FISA. It was appealed by the DOJ.

The appeals court made a temporary ruling that the government could continue as before the Detroit court decision pending the appeal.

The DOJ then dropped the appeal when they said the government was going to conforming with FISA, for now.

Isn't it up to the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to decide if FISA was being violated and not the Congress, e.g. Specter, etc.?

[krispos42]

9. Impeachment is the political process

Nixon was not convicted in any court when he was told that impeachment was coming, and neither was Clinton when Congress delivered the notice to him.

The appearence of inpropriety and the acts believed to have been committed were enough for the political process of impeachment.

Impeachment is not punitive. If/when impeached, Bush will not go to jail. His right to vote will not be removed, he will be able to own firearms and associate with whoever he want to. There will be no ankle monitor, mandatory drug tests, or a parole officer. He will, however, have his ass booted to the curb outside of the White House by the US Park Service until a taxi can take him to the airport.

However, for Bush to be thrown in jail would require a trial and a conviction.

[harveyc]

10. They were charged with crimes, breaking the law ...

it is not clear what occurred with FISA broke the law.

[krispos42]

11. And so has the Bush Admin. Gitmo and FISA comes to mind.

That they have not been tried or convicted does not mean that they cannot be impeached. Just as they are elected based on perceptions by the voters, so can they be removed by the Congress based on perceptions.

That's why Clinton came so close to impeachment. It was the appearance of violating the law, even though he was not convicted of perjury either before or after the impeachment attempt. It's politics, not law.

[harveyc]

12. I understand but they were both charged with crimes ...

respectively, in the articles of impeachment. Still a prerequisite under the Constitution ...

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

FISA is an Act, a law, certainly not treason or bribery.

[krispos42]

14. I think that means by Congress, not by the courts

That is a good question, though. But if Clinton had been impeached, it would have been without a conviction for perjury.

Clarification would be useful.

The courts cannot remove the president from office, but they can convict him of crimes both large and small.

Hmmm...

[harveyc]

15. It is Congress ...

but impeachment is for crimes. It doesn't require a court conviction beforehand, but it does require charges of breaking the law.

GITMO and FISA actions would have to be in violation of the law. What US laws were broken?

I don't think Congress would have any basis, in these two instances, without a Supreme Court ruling, first, that a law was broken.

I guess they could try?

[Senator]

17. No, impeachment is not "for crimes"

The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors." This was specifically used to NOT limit it to criminal activity (at the time the word "misdemeanor" was not associated with crime as it is today).

Congress can lodge impeachment charges on literally any reason that garners majority support. Yes, really. That's how/why it is a political, not judicial, process. It merely has taken on the trappings of a judicial process (too many lawyers involved).

That said, as you note, both the FISA and Geneva (GITMO) violations are violations of US law (US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes). And both the FISA court and the Supreme Court have already ruled on these matters. The FISA court ruled in 2001 that they could not do what they eventually did.

More importantly, the Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled that Geneva applies to enemy combatants. That meant that 3 years of war crimes had already been committed. All the subsequent blather about tribunal-tinkering was just a distraction from that simple reality.

So, even though "crimes" are not required, they have been committed, investigated, and even adjudicated.

There is nothing to "investigate." No ducks to get in a row. No reason for dry powder.

All that is remaining is for "our leaders" to muster the political will to do their constitutional duty.

---

[harveyc]

18. That might be your and others interpretation but ...

precedent has established that a president's impeachment have been based on charges of breaking the law.

Jackson, Nixon and Clinton.

[Senator]

20. It's Johnson, not Jackson

But "precedent" is legal term. It does not apply here.

And it's no crime to be crazy. But a president can certainly be impeached for lunacy.

As I said, anything that gets a majority vote in the House.

--

[harveyc]

21. Johnson, oops! ...

True about lunacy, but it is still a hypothetical.

I can't imagine the wording for the articles of impeachment for some "nebulous" non-legal charges, especially by the Congress.

An adjudication of FISA has not happened. I am searching for where GITMO has been adjudicated as stated previously here.

[Usrename]

28. I don't think the charges against Clinton were legal at all.

Perjury is a somewhat technical crime, and part of any legal charge of perjury has to be the identification of the statement that is alleged to be perjury. This was never done. Rehnquist should have thrown it out on those grounds alone. In addition, it was known that he was not under oath during his testimony, another technical part of the crime. It was a total travesty, legally speaking, IMHO.

[krispos42]

32. I dion't think Rhenquist had the authority to throw it out

The Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate, but for some reason I recall the news of the time saying that his role was largely ceremonial. He's not being imprisoned, after all, just removed from office.

I think it just goes to the definition of 'sexual relations'. It sounds like to me it is a lawyer using a polite term to the President of the United States for asking if they had sex. Not sexual contact or sexual activities.

Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, so in that sense it was a trumped up charge. Not Slick Willy's fault the lawyer didn't ask a follow-up. But it was definately evasive.

He probably should have been censored and the country should have moved on.

[pat_k]

46. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">The Constitution of the United States of America
Article I, The Legislative Branch
Section 3 -- The Senate

. . .
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. . .

Under http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/rules.htm">Senate Rules, the "The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide."

In other words, the Chief Justice conveys and enforces the dictates of the Senate. As presiding officer the Justice has no independent power over the proceedings.

[pat_k]

44. Nothing "illegal" about it. The political process got the right result.

We the People aren't idiots -- at least not in the long run.

The House did not exceed its power when they impeached Clinton.

Clearly, Ken Starr and the "House managers" were motivated by factional interests that had nothing to do with their oath to defend the Constitution (not by any stretch does a blowjob poses a threat to our Constitutional principles), but that is the risk of placing such power in human hands. Their factional motives constitute a repugnant misuse of impeachment, but there was absolutely nothing "illegal" about it.

Unsurprisingly, their factional misuse of the process was stopped in its tracks by the will of the people. The House mamagers and the Republican Party paid a political price (not nearly high enough) for their fascist attempt to impose the will of their tiny faction on the rest of us. (And that is all fascism is -- the belief that your faction, no matter how small, has a "right" to impose its will.)

The Constitution (amendments inclusive) embodies our commitment to the principle that the ONLY moral form of government is one in which "the governed" reign supreme. The only limits are the limits we impose on ourselves through the institutions and laws we establish. (e.g., ensuring that all religions are welcomed in the public square; preventing the interests of minority factions from being trampled over.)

Our system does always save us from ourselves. We have established immoral laws and institutions that undermine our common interest (under the original "terms" we enslaved a sixth of our people and abused our well-established neighbors). But we have done our best to design a system with self-corrective mechanisms that allow us to get back on the path to a "more perfect union."

it is ultimately people, not institutions and process that drive our government. When other checks fail to stop an official from corruputing or abusing the system, impeachment is our backstop -- the body we charged with representing We the People can "take them out."

The Dems took the wrong lesson from the Clinton impeachment. They see only the price paid for the wrong-headed misuee of impeachment, not the benefit the Republicans gained from their single-minded pursuit in the face of ever-growing opposition. Abusive as it wss, Americans respect strength. Just as Bush's arrogant stubbornness has won him points for strength in years past, their single-minded pursuit of Clinton won the fascists a few "strength points." As Clinton himself points out, Americans will pick strong and wrong over weak and right any day.

With ragard to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, the Congressional leadership would be Strong and Right. Unbeatable.

Failure to impeach is weak and wrong. Devastating. (Look where their failure to impeach Reagan and Bush I for Iran-Contra got us.)

Impeaching Bush and Cheney is not just a moral imperative; it is a political winner.

[Usrename]

30. Article 75 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve.

No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of a least six months from the date of receipt by the Protecting Power of the notification of the final judgment confirming such death sentence, or of an order denying pardon or reprieve.

The six months period of suspension of the death sentence herein prescribed may be reduced in individual cases in circumstances of grave emergency involving an organized threat to the security of the Occupying Power or its forces, provided always that the Protecting Power is notified of such reduction and is given reasonable time and opportunity to make representations to the competent occupying authorities in respect of such death sentences.

[Senator]

36. Was this misplaced? n/t

[Usrename]

55. Yes, could be it is misplaced.

Just noting another addition to the list of war crimes. The execution of Saddam, occupying powers are supposed to give him 6mo after sentencing (perhaps he could have used the time to write some memoirs or something).

[Senator]

69. l see. Yes, the crimes -- federal and international -- are myriad

I was just making the point that crimes are not even necessary to warrant an impeachment charge.

They could literally write up an article that cites the regime's lack/loss of credibility with the public.

The effect this is having on any rational decision-making about Iran is a bigger threat to our national security than terrorism at the moment.

Impeachment is not punishment or "accountability," but rather self defense -- against ongoing and/or potential damage to the nation.

Motives are not really relevant. The regime can be deemed objectively to be dangerously incompetent.

As such, any of their lame excuses, "close readings" of the Constitution, or theories of gov't (the "Fascist Fairy Tales" they liteally use to sleep through the night) can be dismissed out of hand and not even given a hearing.

--

[Usrename]

70. The first small glimmer of light I have seen in years.

Reading your post, I mean. It does seem to be a constructive direction for a movement of some kind. Most people tend to underestimate how robustly they react when threatened, which just serves to strengthen their grip. Making them gently let go somehow would seem to be the least dangerous way to proceed.

[bluescribbler]

45. Geneva applies to enemy combatants - GTMO violates Geneva

From Article VI of the United States Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, GTMO violates "the supreme law of the land", and is, as such, a high crime, therefore, an impeachable offense.

[krispos42]

31. Oh,there's a laundry list

Gitmo has a few:

1. torture, which is inhumane treatment and a violation of civil rights
   
2. Improperly held at Gitmo. They are prisoners of war and entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions until and unless a competent board of inquiry finds their status to be otherwise. The Geneva convention is a treaty ratified by the Senate and is therefore part of US law.
   
3. Denial of habeas corpus. The people there have been held for years without access to a lawyer or the court system.

FISA is, to me, the biggie.

Basically, FISA as it relates to wiretapping give the government three days after the fact to get a warrant for a wiretap. You see, when federal agencies like the NSA are monitoring communications overseas, sometimes they accidently listen in on a conversation that involves someone in the US. This is because a person they are monitoring in, let's say, Rome, might pick up the phone and call a person in Florida or vice versa. The NSA or CIA has the Roman guy's phone tapped, so they record everything. Then, oops, they find out the guy is from Miami. The 4th Amendment says you can't listen in on an American in America without a warrant, so they have three days to go to a secret court, play the tape for a judge and present other evidence, and get a retroactive warrant.

That is the only time you need a FISA retroactive warrant. For domestic-to domestic wiretapping warrants, the FBI goes through the normal court procedure, and for foreign-to-foreign wiretapping the feds don't need a warrant at all because they are beyond US law.

If Bush told the NSA and the FBI to listen to any phone calls involving anyone in the United States and that they didn't need to get a warrant, then that is a violation of constitutional rights. Each phone call illegally tapped is a violation, and each person wiretapped is a victim. It is believed to have happenend thousands of times, or more. Probably a lot more.

Incidently, there is no legal difference between a wiretap and a physical search. Bush ordering the FBI to tap Hillary's phone without a warrant is just as illegal and unconstitutional as if he had the FBI sneak into her office and secretly photocopy the contents of her file cabinets or seize her computer.

[GOTV]

33. Impeachment will not remove him from office. Only conviction will and for that you need 67 Senators

So this statement

> He will, however, have his ass booted to the curb outside of the White House

Is incorrect. Impeachment is only charges. You need a conviction.

When you have 67 Senators you can boot Bush to the curb.
Do you have them?

[krispos42]

74. Getting there, getting there

Of course, Bush might just be told by a bipartisan group of Senators that he's about to be impeached and that tomorrow would be a great day to resign. Like Nixon.

With the revelations coming out of the Libby trial and the rumblings about the FISA violation investigations, I think it is building.

[pat_k]

76. <deleted>

And the chances are getting higher everyday. On Tuesday A.B. Stoddard ("The Hill") had a very telling http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904772/">exchange on Tucker. She kept letting little bits of truth slip -- followed by hysterical "Impeachment's impossible" declarations ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks")

STODDARD: I think the whip is then cracked. But, you know, I know Republicans who voted—sane, grownup, respectable people who voted for Bush...
CARLSON: Right?
STODDARD: ... who would like him to not be in office tomorrow. . .
. . .
STODDARD: But I think the Republicans, what they would do is they wouldn‘t so much defend Bush, as they would say, look, the Democrats are power hungry. . . it's easy to turn this accusation back on them>
. . .
STODDARD: . . . you couldn‘t just impeach Bush, is obviously a salient poit. I mean, you just really couldn‘t look at what Cheney has, you know, practically admitted at this point. (sputter, sputter)

I think the whole thing is just impossible.

CARLSON: No, but wait a second.

STODDARD: It‘s just impossible.

. . .

STODDARD: And listen. You know, Ralph Nader brought up a poll. He said it was from two years ago and there was about 53 percent of—of the public was favor of impeachment if you learned that he had lied about such and such. About a year ago there was a poll at 53, 54 percent for censure.
This discussion will go on and on. It will not stop. And it might—John Conyers might start talking about it again, but are they actually going to proceed? I mean, no.

[pat_k]

77. <deleted>

Would be VERY high. (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12|Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them>)

The worms are turning. In this climate, the probability that the threat of impeachment would lead to resignations is increasing. On Tuesday A.B. Stoddard ("The Hill") had a very telling http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904772/">exchange on Tucker. She kept letting little bits of truth slip -- followed by hysterical "Impeachment's impossible" declarations ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks")

STODDARD: I think the whip is then cracked. But, you know, I know Republicans who voted—sane, grownup, respectable people who voted for Bush...
CARLSON: Right?
STODDARD: ... who would like him to not be in office tomorrow. . .
. . .
STODDARD: But I think the Republicans, what they would do is they wouldn‘t so much defend Bush, as they would say, look, the Democrats are power hungry. . . it's easy to turn this accusation back on them>
. . .
STODDARD: . . . you couldn‘t just impeach Bush, is obviously a salient poit. I mean, you just really couldn‘t look at what Cheney has, you know, practically admitted at this point. (sputter, sputter)

I think the whole thing is just impossible.

CARLSON: No, but wait a second.

STODDARD: It‘s just impossible.

. . .

STODDARD: And listen. You know, Ralph Nader brought up a poll. He said it was from two years ago and there was about 53 percent of—of the public was favor of impeachment if you learned that he had lied about such and such. About a year ago there was a poll at 53, 54 percent for censure.
This discussion will go on and on. It will not stop. And it might—John Conyers might start talking about it again, but are they actually going to proceed? I mean, no.

[pat_k]

78. Yep. Pressure to keep WH Repub via resignation "exit strategy". . .

<Sorry about the dups -- errors on post; posts not appearing in My DU>

. . .would be VERY high. (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them)

The worms are turning. In this climate, the probability that the threat of impeachment would lead to resignations is increasing. On Tuesday A.B. Stoddard ("The Hill") had a very telling http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904772/">exchange on Tucker. She kept letting little bits of truth slip -- followed by hysterical "Impeachment's impossible" declarations ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks")

STODDARD: I think the whip is then cracked. But, you know, I know Republicans who voted—sane, grownup, respectable people who voted for Bush...
CARLSON: Right?
STODDARD: ... who would like him to not be in office tomorrow. . .
. . .
STODDARD: But I think the Republicans, what they would do is they wouldn‘t so much defend Bush, as they would say, look, the Democrats are power hungry. . . it's easy to turn this accusation back on them>
. . .
STODDARD: . . . you couldn‘t just impeach Bush, is obviously a salient poit. I mean, you just really couldn‘t look at what Cheney has, you know, practically admitted at this point. (sputter, sputter)

I think the whole thing is just impossible.

CARLSON: No, but wait a second.

STODDARD: It‘s just impossible.

. . .

STODDARD: And listen. You know, Ralph Nader brought up a poll. He said it was from two years ago and there was about 53 percent of—of the public was favor of impeachment if you learned that he had lied about such and such. About a year ago there was a poll at 53, 54 percent for censure.
This discussion will go on and on. It will not stop. And it might—John Conyers might start talking about it again, but are they actually going to proceed? I mean, no.

[pat_k]

82. <deleted>

[krispos42]

75. Dupe, self-delete. Mods, if you please....

[durtee librul]

79. Do you really think

there is a taxi driver who would pick him up? I don't think so unless Trent Lott is moonlighting now........

[durtee librul]

80. Do you really think

there is a taxi driver in DC who would pick him up.....unless Trent Lott has been moonlighting again......:rofl:

[durtee librul]

81. Do you really think there

is a taxi in DC who would pick him up....unless Trent Lott is moonlighting again??????

[pat_k]

16. When we empowered Congress to impeach, we created a backstop that trumps all legalisms. . .

Our Constitutional design is intended to ensure that the application of the law is the best reflection of our will that can be achieved in an imperfect world. When the laws we pass to address specific problems (or interpretations of those laws) conflict with each other, or with the tenets of our Constitution, we look to the judiciary to resolve these conflicts. But, the judiciary is NOT the "last word." When we gave Congress -- our voice -- the power to impeach officials in the judiciary and executive we gave them the ultimate trump card.

Contrary to the fascist propaganda we hear daily, the branches are NOT co-equal.

Numerous charges against Bush and Cheney are well known to the public. Elected bodies, good government organizations, and countless individual citizens have examined the evidence and judged Bush and Cheney to be an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy. They have demanded action from Congress.

When confronted with a potential threat to the constitution, Members of Congress are bound by their oath to pass judgment -- to either dismiss the charges as baseless or take defensive action to remove the threat. They bear moral responsibility for damage done each day that they unnecessarily put off their duty to judge.

Every day that they do nothing effectively exonerates Bush and Cheney. If exoneration is their intent, then they should do it honestly by telling us why the abuses that are obvious to a majority of Americans are not abuses in their eyes.

The limbo of "I don't know" is not an escape. Vague claims to "need more information" are no better than the limbo of "I don't know." If they believe they need something more to make a judgment, they must actively seek it. If they are unable to get what they need, they must render judgment on the information at hand.

They can look to external authorities for guidance, but they are not limited or bound by anything but their oath and their conscience. They cannot escape their duty with claims that they must wait for, and submit to, the ruling of the Courts.

If a Members of Congress concludes that a ruling of the Supreme Court subverts the Constitution, that member has a duty to call on their colleagues to act -- to impeach the offending justices.

As we remind each other of the simple truths and moral principles on which our Constitution is based we empower ourselves. We put an end to the claims of "complexity" and legal technicality that the forces of fascism use trump our will.

Far from being "painful" or "negative," impeachment is a message of hope and a declaration of our power.

For more on this, you might want to check out http://january6th.org/reject-fascist-fantasy.html">How to Resist the Fascist Take-Over

[harveyc]

19. If the way FISA was "not used" ...

were determined by the Supreme Court to be within the law for the Executive under Article II, the only recourse the Congress would have is to introduce a more restrictive law which would not be a basis for impeachment, grandfathered.

To extend the word "misdemeanor" beyond that of breaking the law for impeachment, would be unprecedented in US history. Virtually no probability.

[pat_k]

26. Congress trumps. Example: Bush v. Gore was treasonous. Impeaching Scalia, Thomas,

. . .and Kennedy for that edict would effectively denounce and overturn it. If Congress concludes that a Federal Judge or Justice is subverting the Constitution with their rulings, impeachment is the remedy.

The bottom line is that Congress is not "co-equal." The power to impeach gives Congress power over the other branches. Neither the executive or the judiciary can touch a member of Congress. Even if convicted of a crime and jailed, only the House can expel a Member of the House; only the Senate can expel a Member of the Senate.

We vested to power to impeach with the House because it is the body closet to the people, the body we keep in line with our votes every two years.

It only makes sense that we would give more power to Congress. They are OUR Voice. When we established our Constitution, we surrendered NONE of our sovereignty to any institution we created.

---------------------------------------
With regard to the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" -- It is lunacy to think the Constitution for the United States of America gives (or even might give) the Presidency the power to flagrantly violate the collective will of the people codified in the acts and resolutions passed by our Congress.

You do not need an expert to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

This is not the first time that fascists have appealed to legalistic technicality and "complexity" to thwart the will of the people, and it will not be the last.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it, Too many Americans have been deceived into believing that they are helpless in the face of legal authority. Even when we are in complete agreement that the INTENT of our law is being overruled by legalisms and cynical misuse of the courts, we have submitted to authorities who tell us, "the law is the law." The spread of this fascist view of the law has had devastating consequences.

No matter how long and complex, or how "scholarly and sophisticated" in form, when an opinion yields results that violate the intent of our laws and the principles embodied in our Constitution, the opinion is a sham.

Like the story of the Emporer's New Clothes, sometimes the "authorities" and "sophisticated" are taken in far more easily than the naive. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust their own judgment and reject the sham.

[Throwing Stones]

23. Depends on how the case was "dropped"

If the DOJ was granted a motion to dismiss without prejudice (which is probably what happened), then the ruling of the Detroit district court likely would not apply to a finding of whether the administration broke the law - that is, the DOJ would be free to re argue their case. But keep in mind that they would still have to argue the case under the facts and the law as it was at the time of any alleged illegal wiretapping. If the case was dismissed with prejudice, I think the DOJ would be precluded from even being allowed to make the argument again that the administration did not follow FISA (at least in that district, if not in that circuit). Bottom line is that it does not necessarily require SCOTUS to rule on whether FISA was violated, although in all practicality SCOTUS would eventually rule on either the underlying facts or the DOJ's procedural ability to further challenge the Detroit district judge's decision.

[harveyc]

24. I am not a Constitutional lawyer ...

but I believe, regardless of the outcome in the Detroit district / circuit courts, the DOJ could still petition the case the Supreme Court for a ruling in this matter.

[Babel_17]

8. Impressive logic: Recommended nt

[Throwing Stones]

22. Unscientific Poll

Pat_k and those who have responded thus far,
I'm curious about what the overarching reason (if there is one) is for inaction on the part of the 110th with respect to impeachment.

What's holding back long overdue proceedings now that dems are in charge? Is it simply that not enough time has passed since they took control? Will they ever begin proceedings? If not, why, when there's overwhelming evidence (including an admission, for crying out loud) to support a filing of articles?

What do others think it is that's making the dems hold back?
a. lack of cajones
b. fear it will further "embolden the enemy" or otherwise evoke more anti-patriotism rhetoric
c. fear it will ruin either their own individual re-election bid or kill any chance of a blue executive in '08
d. other ?


And if it's (c), then what do people think is worse - stopping this president NOW or losing the White House two years from now?

[pat_k]

25. would add (e) fear of dirty looks at cocktail parties; (f) all of the above.

. . .and my answer would be (f)

They are just people -- people who are tragically trapped in their insular little world. Any closed social system -- whether a department, an organization, a business sector, a political party, or a social world like the "beltway bubble"-- creates its own reality. Shared "insider" assumptions are rarely challenged or tested against reality. Unless challenged by outsiders, faulty assumptions beget faulty interpretations, which beget assumptions that diverge further and further from reality "outside."

The only way to avoid the trap is to bring in outsiders and take their challenges and observations VERY seriously or Get Out and spend a significant amount of time in another "world."

The beltway does neither. As politics has become increasingly professionalized, the beltway has become an increasingly closed and stable system. Within that closed system, the self-destructive assumptions behind the "created reality" of Democratic Party politics has been incredibly resistant to change.

The "conventional wisdom" and exhortations we've heard since the election -- "impeachment is off limits," "it's about issues, issue, issues," "suppress anger," "don't overreach," etc. -- aren't new. We heard them last month. We heard them last year. We have been hearing similar admonitions to be "pragmatic" and "tactical" or to "keep our powder dry" for decades because such admonitions are grounded in assumptions and patterns of thought that have resisted change for decades.

We can inject reality into their insular world, but to do it more of us are going to have to inject ourselves -- confront them face-to-face so we can elicit and contradict the self-defeating and irrational beliefs that are immobilizing them.

[GOTV]

34. It's C and D

C: They fear their election chances since it seems, through polling, that the people are not very pro-impeachment yet.

D: Other, If they start impeachment now it is very likely to fail and in failing will make Bush stronger.

[pat_k]

58. If the leadership impeached, the polls tell us that AT LEAST 58% would support them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x82492

[calimary]

27. Sometimes you have to help them see. Sometimes you have to put it

in ways they can understand and with which they can resonate, keeping in mind where they're coming from.

I've been going after those who worship the god business lately, and messing with their heads.

Most of them, like my own Dianne Feinstein, are sympathetic to big business, were in business at one point (in her case, her spouse still is - very much so), tend to cut business a lopsided share of breaks, etc. Some of them, not necessarily DiFi but others, have in the past advocated the glories of running the government like a business. Okay, then - let the games begin.

I got on the phone with a young man in her office. I put the question to him - what would you do if you were running a business, and you realized you had a rogue employee? An employee who is consistently and deliberately insubordinate. Doesn't recognize your authority. Does what he damned well pleases. Flouts company rules and regs. Shows VERY poor decision-making capacity as he's flouting authority. Say he's a department head. Knows the company way, the policies, the mission statement, etc. He should - he's been around for awhile now. Yet he has repeatedly made bad decisions, hasn't consulted with upper management, lost the company a ton of money, fouled the company's reputation in the marketplace - AND its competitive position. WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT THAT EMPLOYEE? Keep him on and hope you can somehow, someday talk reason through his thick skull, into his closed ears? Keep your fingers crossed and try to cope while he's taking your company down the drain, undermining morale, and losing you a fortune? Or would you get rid of him? Wouldn't you fire him? Post haste? Would you REALLY allow him to continue on a path that's a proven loser? Would you really keep him on? Would you give him a raise? How 'bout a medal?

You wouldn't? Aha... I see. We agree on this. That sound like anybody you know in Washington at the moment?

I could tell by the change and timbre of this young man's voice that he'd never thought of it in these terms before. He even said so. Never looked at it this way and conceded it made sense. Maybe he IS looking at it that way now. And that's the kind of thing we need to spread. Perhaps with some of these - especially the wavering ones - they just haven't been given a really effective way to look at it. Give them a different pair of reading glasses. One that might be a better prescription than the pair they're using now. It might help them see better.

And for people who are pretty much ours - like those in DiFi's office - maybe they just haven't found a way to look at this that gives them any confidence of advancing an argument they'd probably love to, but don't have the nerve to try. Maybe they just haven't been able to see that it IS possible. They haven't figured out how to make it possible because other arguments don't go the distance for them. If you can find a way to get through to them, to convince them, perhaps you'll have given them the tools to use to convince somebody else. And keep paying it forward.

What we must NOT do is let the momentum now building ever greater - to fizzle. Things are going OUR way now. We must NOT drop that ball!!! TOO MUCH is riding on it.

[pat_k]

29. Analogies are VERY helpful.

I often use the drunk driver analogy.

The police are sworn to protect the public. To enable them to fulfill that oath, we gave them the power apprehend a suspect if they have probable cause. If an on-duty cop sees a car weaving all over the road, his oath demands that he pull the driver over and take the keys. He has no PROOF that the driver is drunk, but nevertheless, his duty demands that he take away the suspect's power to do harm.

Congress is sworn to defend the Constitution. To enable them to fulfill that oath when the attack comes from within, we gave them the power to impeach.

What part of "drunk with power" don't they understand?

[DemReadingDU]

38. very good analogy, n/t

[GOTV]

35. An impeached president serves his full term and has all the power of an unimpeached president

... unless he is also convicted in the Senate.

So unless you willing to do the work necessary for conviction, your impeachment is a waste of time.

[Senator]

37. If he can find 30plus Senators to join him in War Criminal Status

He's already having trouble just finding 20 to support his "surge."

When articles of impeachment are voted out, the Senators no longer have the luxury of claiming ignorance or powerlessness to avoid the issue(s). They must vote to convict or to give every bit of that stolen power to President Hillary.

It is quite a different thing to be put on the spot, for history and an angry woman.

But defending the Constitution is never a waste of time. It is their solemn duty. They don't have the luxury of considering what will or won't happen in the Senate.

--

[GOTV]

39. The surge and impeachment have a very important distinction...

... opposing the surge is to be in line with a large majority of Americans. Supporting impeachment is not in line with a large majority of Americans. That explains why Senators are reluctant to support the surge but are not talking about impeachment.

You post shows a number of misconceptions.

"When articles of impeachment are voted out, the Senators no
longer have the luxury of claiming ignorance or powerlessness
to avoid the issue"

The Senators claim neither ignorance nor powerlessness to avoid the issue. They are aware of the same things we are aware of. An impeachment, started now, will bring up no new information because there is no new information to be had right now.

"They must vote to convict or to give every
bit of that stolen power to President Hillary."

An impeachment, even a conviction, of Bush in no way changes the powers left to the next president. A conviction only removes a president from office. Additional work must be done to restrict the next president but that additional work could be taken whether or not the current president is impeached or convicted.

You conflate the two when they are actually unrelated.

"But defending the Constitution is never a waste of time."

Impeaching the president, without actually removing him from office, does not protect the constitution in any way and so would be a waste of time.

Also, just as a matter of fact - regardless of how noble you may have felt typing it, any action may be a waste of time whether or not its goal is defending the constitution. An action is a waste of time if it cannot be expected to have a chance at achieving your goal - and what your goal may be is irrelevant.

Again you conflate two things that are unrelated as the president did with Iraq and 9/11. In this case the rightness of a goal with a soundness of your methods of achieving the goal.

[Senator]

59. Distinction without a difference

The "majorities" are now nearly within the margin of error of the polls.

As for the rest, you sound as if you're trying to convince yourself of something.

Good luck with it.

---

[Time for change]

40. Why would you assume that impeachment wouldn't be followed by conviction

There are a myriad of crimes involvement the willfull failure to abide by our Constitution, committed by this administration. Why do you think it would be so difficult to convict on that basis?

[GOTV]

41. Because Senators will not vote both against their party and against their constituents...

They may vote with their party and against the people, they may vote against their party and with the people but they will not vote against both.

The GOP is not in agreement that Bush has committed serious crimes and polls show that the public is not yet behind impeachment in large numbers.

The Senators read the same papers and web sites that we do and thus are aware of the accusations against the president and hearing all the old charges over again under the guise of impeachment will not change any minds that weren't changed the first time.

[pat_k]

56. There's a good chance they'd convict; but Bush and Cheney would probably resign first.

Their beliefs about what the Senate will or will not do are absolutely irrelevant. A Member of the House who sees the truth -- that Bush and Cheney pose are clear and present danger to the Constitution -- has a choice. Accuse/impeach or be derelict in their duty.

Whatever their fears, nothing excuses dereliction. We expect men and women of our armed service to risk life and limb, win or lose, in defense of the nation. Why would we expect less of Members of Congress, who take the same oath. Why would they expect less of themselves?

They are duty bound to act. Luckily for the nation, there's a good chance that Bush and Cheney will be pressured to take the resignation "exit strategy" to keep the White House in Republican hands. If they stubbornly refuse to take that way out, there's good chance that they will be convicted in the Senate:

From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12

Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

The chances of conviction are increasing with the increasing Republican disgust with Bush and Cheney. The chattering class remains in denial, but that denial is breaking down -- we're helping to break it down. A.B. Stoddard's sputtering on Tucker yesterday said it all. She unintentially makes the case for impeachment, then hysterically pounds the "it's impossible . . impossible!" drum; ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks.")

]STODDARD: I think the whip is then cracked. But, you know, I know Republicans who voted—sane, grownup, respectable people who voted for Bush...
CARLSON: Right?
STODDARD: ... who would like him to not be in office tomorrow. . .
. . .
STODDARD: But I think the Republicans, what they would do is they wouldn‘t so much defend Bush, as they would say, look, the Democrats are power hungry. . .http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12"> it's easy to turn this accusation back on them>
. . .
STODDARD: . . . you couldn‘t just impeach Bush, is obviously a salient poit. I mean, you just really couldn‘t look at what Cheney has, you know, practically admitted at this point. (sputter, sputter)

I think the whole thing is just impossible.

CARLSON: No, but wait a second.

STODDARD: It‘s just impossible.

. . .

STODDARD: And listen. You know, Ralph Nader brought up a poll. He said it was from two years ago and there was about 53 percent of—of the public was favor of impeachment if you learned that he had lied about such and such. About a year ago there was a poll at 53, 54 percent for censure.
This discussion will go on and on. It will not stop. And it might—John Conyers might start talking about it again, but are they actually going to proceed? I mean, no.

[Time for change]

62. If the GOP is not in agreement that Bush has committed serious crimes

then they're idiots.

But actually, they are very aware that he has.

When impeachment hearings are held, the public will become aware of them also, even those who are not paying attention. Then Bush's ratings will dip even lower than they are now. With the public behind it, there will be no reason for 16 GOP Senators not to get on board.

That's exactly what happened to Nixon. The nation was not in favor for impeaching him until the nationally publicized hearings were held. Then they got on board pretty fast, followed quickly by Republicans in Congress.

Does a prosecutor take polls before charging someone with a crime, or does s/he make the decision based on the available evidence, and then let the jury decide after it gets to hear the evidence?

[pat_k]

42. A lynch mob could be acquitted by a jury of racists too. Does that mean you don't accuse?

A prosecutor who refuses to accuse because he doesn't trust the racists in his city to convict would be beneath contempt.

So too are Members of Congress who refuse to accuse Bush and Cheney of their intolerable high crimes against our constitutional democracy because they don't trust the Senate to convict

[GOTV]

43. If you can't build a case that results in conviction, yes, no reason to prosecute....

"A prosecutor who refuses to accuse because he doesn't trust the racists in his city to convict would be beneath contempt."

Bullshit. A prosecutor's job is to build a case that can bring a conviction. If they can't do that they are wasting their time and our money.

You disagree? Explain exactly how an impeachment without conviction helps us? I mean really. Will it bring a soldier home? Will it shut down an illegal wiretap? Will it restore the federal budget to balanced? Once the impeachment fails and demonstrates that Bush is properly fulfilling his role as president, which is what an acquittal means, in what way will the president be restrained?

Even your poor analogies don't work for you.

If you're not willing to put in the work to build a case that results in conviction - and you apparently are not, you must not be interested in actually doing something about the crimes of this administration because only a conviction will do that.

[pat_k]

47. The case for impeaching Bush and Cheney makes itself. . .

. . . The offenses far exceed the threshold of "impeachable" by any measure. The proof is in the public record and meets a standard that far exceeds the any rational threshold for impeachment. If you doubt this, please re-read my OP.

[GOTV]

49. Not as far as "the people" are concerned....

... and it you can't convince them, you can't convince the GOP Senators and you've got nothing.

The public record convinces you and me but we are not enough.

[pat_k]

51. Their oath is an individual oath. Every member who sees the truth. . .

. . .has a duty to accuse/impeach.

Thank goodness for the nation, their oath is an oath to fight -- to support and defend; not an oath to win. If a member believes Bush and Cheney pose a threat to the Constitution, their oath makes impeachment a morral imperative. It does not matter whether they stand alone or with a legion.

Silence is complicity.

[GOTV]

54. Then why are you unwilling to fight and insist on a failing impeachment instead?

Luckily for us the Congress seems to have more of a stomach for the fight than many of us here.

No one has a moral imperative to fail. So you are wrong on that point.

[pat_k]

57. The most insidious of all the rationalizations for inaction is "Won't happen, so shut up."

When ordered into battle, the men and women of our armed services are duty bound -- win or lose. They often know that SOME of them will almost certainly "fail" (be killed or maimed). Nevertheless, by virtue of their oath, thay have made a commitment to follow a superior's orders -- a "moral imperative" that we enforce under penalty of death for refusal; a moral imperative that can only be trumped by higher law (e.g., if oered to commit a war crime, refusal/report is the imperative.)

Irrationally beating the failure drum, which seems to be a habit peculiar to "our side," is one of the most destructive forces we have to contend with.

Failing to fight because "it's futile" is a self-defeating prophesy. The things worth fighting for will never happen if nobody takes up the fight.

It takes courage to stand and fight for principle, come what may. Perhaps the leadership of the 110th Congress truly are jellyfish incapable of such courageous action. If they fail us yet again, we need to fight for the future by fighting to replace each and every Democratic jellyfish with a person of courage who knows the meaning of an oath.

If they take the path of unprincipled cowardice, they not only betray the nation, they confirm the perception that they are wimps -- and it is THAT perception, not the Republican opposition that is their biggest problem.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/8">We're Doomed! Doomed I Tell You! (An Impeachment Intervention)

[calimary]

67. Yes indeedy! Howard Dean once said that the only way we lose is

if we give up.

You should NEVER let the thinking that - "aaaahhh, it's no use. Why try?" stop you. NEVER! Weren't we thinking about this time last year that we might never see the light of day at all? Didn't it seem nearly impossible that we'd have a November 7th, 2006 like we did? Didn't it seem, last year, as though the idea of an actual living breathing woman Speaker of the House was just a pipe dream in the back of some middle-aged feminist's mind (like mine)? Didn't it seem as though people like John Warner and Chuck Hagel would never stick their heads up out of the trenches and put a roadblock up in bush's path? A year ago, of course it didn't seem possible, especially considering all the defeats and setbacks and disappointments and heartaches we've suffered over the past six years (at minimum). But things change! Momentum shifts - as do tides. What is now in fashion is soon to be banished to the consignment store. Robert Downey Junior once defined "Hot" as "Destined to be cold." THINGS CHANGE. Just because things aren't going our way at exactly this moment doesn't mean they can't change completely by this time tomorrow. At one time, bush looked invincible - the most likely candidate for canonization. He had the majority in every poll - securely on his side. Now, it's almost 60 percent of those polled telling Newsweek, I believe, that they wish his reign of terror were over already. THINGS CHANGE!!! Just because the cards once were all stacked against us doesn't mean they stay that way.

As our own Class Warrior would say: NGU!!! Never Give Up!!!

[pat_k]

71. Yep. Life would be a bore if we knew how events would unfold! (nt)

[pat_k]

72. Yep. Life would be a bore if we knew how events would unfold! (nt)

[pat_k]

73. Yep. Life would be a bore if we knew how events would unfold! (nt)

[pat_k]

48. <deleted redundant>

[GOTV]

52. I understand that you think you have a slam dunk case - the people that matter do not agree yet...

... and that's why your calls for impeachment are impotent.

If you want Bush removed and the constitution protected, you're going about it in the wrong order.

You realize that it doesn't matter if YOU think the case is open and shut right? Other people have different opinions. And the people who matter might actually feel that Bush's actions do not warrant removal.

[pat_k]

53. Crossing posts -- see Replies #49 and #50

[coznfx]

61. Now I see where you're coming from ...

you believe some people don't matter.

[pat_k]

50. "A prosecutor who has confessions in hand and irrefutable proof, who. . .

. . .nevertheless refuses to accuse would be beneath contempt."

I ommitted the qualification that I http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3069280&mesg_id=3069981">typically include.

[coznfx]

60. Performing your sworn duty as a Congressman

is NEVER, EVER a waste of time.

Even if the odds of winning the SaveAmerica lottery are miniscule (and I don't for one second think they are), if you don't buy a ticket, your chances of winning are exactly ZERO.

IMPEACH BUSH NOW. IMPEACH THE REST OF THE BASTARDS IMMEDIATELY AFTER. Jail is too good for 'em. Maybe an Asylum for the Criminally Insane whose treatment methods include a meat-restricted diet: the only meat they get are the fleas they pick off each other's worthless carcasses.

I have never before truly hated anyone or anything as much as I hate BushCo. Of that fact I am deeply ashamed. I find myself acting and reacting inappropriately in various situations because the intensity of my hatred clouds my thought processes. For example: this rant, in a response to this thread's topic. Pardon me.

[maryallen]

64. Agree totally!

[reprehensor]

65. "Ride the Clue Train..."

Ay, ya, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

Put shrub on a rail, ride 'em out of town, etc.

I hear the Hague is lovely this time of year.