Why would impeachment take too long?

[Kablooie]

I keep hearing that impeachment would take much longer than other options.

But why?

Impeachment isn't a trial by jury. It's simply a vote in the house, then a vote in the senate. And it's over.

I can understand not wanting to do it when you know you don't have the votes, but if you are likely to get the votes it seems like the quickest, most efficient and way to get rid of the monsters. They don't even have an appeal option. When it's done it's done.

[Lobster Martini]

1. It wouldn't take too long, but is it a good idea?

The time between Bill Clinton's impeachment and acquittal was less than two months. But if Bush were impeached and convicted, wouldn't Dick Cheney become President? That's not an appealing prospect. Really, what would change?

[AndyTiedye]

4. Impeach Cheney First!

[Lobster Martini]

5. When you wish upon a star

That would be fun, but we have to wait for the Scooter verdict.

[jobycom]

7. Counting the investigation, it took a year. nt

[Seabiscuit]

2. It would take a long time because

the House Judiciary Committee would be up to its neck wading through the huge laundry list of impeachable offenses committed by this administration trying to narrow them down to a handful that they could agree on before sending them to the House floor for extended debate before any votes to impeach could occur.

[AshevilleGuy]

3. A vote in the Senate and it's over?

Yes, considering that we would never get the 67 votes required by the Constitution to convict, it would indeed be over quickly. Unless something catastrophic happens in Iraq and GWB refuses to do anything about it, impeachment just ain't gonna happen.

And I would love to see it, just as you.

[jobycom]

6. That's pretty naive.

First, it is a trial, not just a vote. There has to be specific evidence collected to prove specific crimes, and the crimes are clearly defined: treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors (which has a fairly clearly defined meaning of "distinctly political crimes meant to harm the state"). The investigation of Clinton's perjury and obstruction charges took over a year, and the case was extremely weak.

Second, the evidence has to be presented and debated in committee, articles have to be drawn up, and then each article and all the evidence pertaining to it has to be debated before the House. You can't just say "Let's impeach Bush. All those in favor..." There have to be specific charges with supporting evidence.

Third, IF the evidence can convince a majority of the House, you have a full trial in the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding. Again, all the evidence is presented and debated for each charge, lawyeres for both sides have to speak, etc. Again, they don't just vote, they have to prove a case.

Fourth, two-thirds of the Senate has to vote to remove. That just won't happen without really strong evidence, and again, to very specific, impeachable crimes. Just being a bad president is not grounds for impeachment. Starting a bad war is not grounds. Mismanaging money is not grounds. Treason (and that, too, is clearly defined in the Constitution), bribery, or crimes meant to harm the state have to be proven, and they have to proven strongly enough that half the president's own party is convinced.

Six to eight months is optimistic, barring some smoking gun falling into our laps.

And then we have President Cheney, and if we take another six months impeaching him, we have whomever he appointed as VP.

There is no magic wand. The only way it will happen is if something dramatic turns up. And given that the DSM, the Plame case, the forged Nigerian documents, etc, weren't enough, the evidence would have to be pretty spectacular to convince the Republicans to go along.

[rock]

10. Technically, it's not a trial but a political process

in two parts. If there's no dissention, they can proceed with the vote. I'm talking theoretically here. I believe the fastest it could be done is about a half a day (the impeachment and conviction).

[onenote]

11. again, naive

Technically, the proceeding in the Senate is a "trial". Just not a criminal trial. And there are specific rules in place regarding the presentation of evidence, etc. Yes, the Senate could vote to change those rules, but do you really think that the public will accept a kangaroo court procedure?

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/rules.htm

[jobycom]

12. Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about here.

It's definitely a trial.

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.

Article I, section 3:
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.

Article III, section 2: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment...

(It's clearly meant to be a trial, which means the president has the full right to mount a defense. And if the president gets to mount a defense, then someone has to mount a prosecution. That is not a matter of an afternoon. The Clinton impeachment was a speedy deal, and I do mean deal. Both sides worked out an agreement in advance to limit the trial in scope, to make it go quickly. Both sides knew from the beginning it was a show trial, with no hope of conviction, so they were willing to make concessions. If Bush goes in on trial for his job, his team will drag it out as long as they can.)

Now, on the specific crime of Treason, Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

(We would have to find evidence to meet that specific requirement for treason, and it is clearly not going to be found. We would have to impeach on the more vague "high crimes and misdeameanors. I think maybe we could convince all the Dems that he was guilty of that, and perhaps a couple of Republicans. But keep in mind, too, that if we try him and fail to remove him, it will be even harder to impeach him again if more evidence is found. It's just a bad idea, as things stand. Congress is doing the right thing. They are investigating, issuing subpoenas, and gathering evidence. If the evidence proves an impeachable crime, they will go after him. But they are not going to say "We are gathering evidence to try to find something to impeach him on," because that declaration itself would make the investigation sound like a witch hunt, and that would make it less credible in a trial).

Six to eight months is an optimistic view of how long it would take, barring a legite smoking gun.

[Eurobabe]

8. After watching 'Why We Fight' last evening

I am convinced that impeachment will never happen. Plain and simple.

Who stands to gain by leaving things the way they are? Everyone except the people of the United States. The entire premise of this movie is that there is massive collusion between the Govt. (including Congress), the Defense Contractors, and the media. I have serious doubts that anyone is going to shut off the spigot.

America is going down the shitter, just like Rome.

[aquart]

9. Uh huh. We ain't got the votes.

And getting rid of George only to have another Halliburton puppet put into the White House will solve nothing.

There has to be huge exposure and revulsion. The Republicans gave this man all the power he wanted. THEY have to pay for that.

[underpants]

13. They should take a Friday afternoon and impeach him

They will never have the votes in the Senate to convict him but they should show how efficiently goverment can work by taking a vote on a Friday afternoon then send it over to the Senate. At least he will have been impeached in all the history books.