Call Their Bluff---IMPEACH!

[Demeter]

Start with Gonzo and Cheney, clean up the Dept of Injustice, then go after W, if he's stupid enough to still be there.

What have we got to lose that isn't already forfeit? Civil war? That's about the only thing left.

[Matariki]

1. Does impeachment require 60 votes in the Senate?

If so, which 10 Republicans would join the Democrats?

[williesgirl]

3. Impeachment is in the House, conviction in the Senate.

[jtrockville]

4. Impeachment starts in the HOUSE

After the house impeaches, the senate will try the case and issue a guilty or not-guilty verdict.

[Demeter]

5. Impeachment is a House Function--No Senate Input

CONVICTION AND Removal from office is the Senate responsibility.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate

Theoretically, the case need only be provable to a clear and convincing standard. However, some Republicans will (without necessarily saying so) demand beyond a reasonable doubt and that might get us the 17. Republicans like Inhofe will consider reasonable against Bush just as he considers reasonable evidence of global warming or of evolution of species by natural selection -- there is proof reasonable enough for people like him.

What I'm saying is the case had better be good and air tight and based on something more profound than a blow job.

[Senator]

19. They've Aready "Convicted" on Torture

The Senate has already opposed the regime by voting for the McCain Anti-Torture Law by a margin of 90-9. Sadly, it was negated via "Rule By Signing Statement" and the war crimes continue. The regime admits to and "defends" its actions. Consequently, there is no "case" to be made -- simply a choice of approval/exoneration/complicity or reprimand.

It should be noted however that this is at best a shadow play, as "we" don't get to decide what does or does not constitute war crimes. If we do not take action against US war criminals -- as is our treaty obligation -- other signatories are free to do so without regard to international borders.

The torture charge takes the decision out of the realm of temporary domestic politics and makes the Senate's conviction decision one of whether or not the US will be noted for history, in perpetuity, as a War Criminal Nation.

Failure to impeach and convict leaves our once-great nation with that ignoble status.

----

[Matariki]

9. THANKS for all the replys. And another question.

What is the impeachment process in the House? A majority vote? Two thirds?

How likely would it be to pass?

[jtrockville]

16. A simply majority is needed in the House

Not sure how likely it is, but it ought to be unanimous.

[onenote]

28. at this point, a close call as to whether there would be a majority in the House

At this point, I have serious doubts as to whether the votes are there in the Housse. I'm assuming that the first step would be to authorize an inquiry (the approach taken in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment efforts). At this stage, I'm not sure any repubs would support that effort and, under those circumstances, it would only take 16 defections on the Democratic side to keep an inquiry from going forward. I'm guessing that if it was a strictly party line vote, the number of blue dog Democrats from marginally red districts who wouldn't want to have to cast that vote might be enough to scuttle the whole thing. Assuming that the requisite votes can be mustered to go forward, the key ultimately again will be whether, when actual articles of impeachment are presented, enough repubs jump ship to make the process appear to be bi-partisan. If not, then I doubt you can get enough Democrats to go along.

[hootinholler]

17. The way people feel about this administration I dare any Senator to vote against conviction.

Once the evidence is presented, voting to acquit That's some powerful campaign material to be unseated by. I mean, put up bullet points of the charges, the evidence, and then a clip the vote to acquit being cast.

My question is would the investigations leading to Articles of Impeachment be reported?

-Hoot

[onenote]

29. Did you dare them to vote for a no timetable funding bill?

Did you dare them to vote against cloture on the gonzo no-confidence vote?

[ClassWarrior]

27. We shouldn't let hypotheticals keep us from doing the right thing.

Besides, once IMPEACHMENT hearings have begun in the House, who knows what will happen with the numbers? And once IMPEACHMENT hearings have ended, it's anyone's guess.

NGU.

[asthmaticeog]

2. BRILLIANT!

[aquart]

6. What's brilliant about a plan that cannot be acted upon?

GOT VOTES?

[jpgray]

7. Pretty sure his post is a windup

:D

[rocktivity]

14. I'll settle for getting the votes on record and the Repubs running against it in '08

Besides, it's the right thing for the House to do because investigating oversight is what the House is SUPPOSED to do. Not being able to win is no excuse for not doing your duty.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Vincardog]

15. You got that right rocknation. Are we a country ruled by LAWS or Kings?

[lyonn]

25. Who knows what the vote will be after the evidence

has been presented to the House?

[Zuiderelle]

10. ...

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[MonkeyFunk]

11. I want a pony

[Demeter]

23. Need Manure?

[pat_k]

12. It's no bluff. Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power. . .

. . .through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open.")

. . .Bush and Cheney are openly trespassing on our Constitution intentionally. It is the means by which they are grabbing and holding powers we have denied them under the Constitution. They are saying:. .

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22">More. . .

[Demeter]

13. With NO Army Left, It's a Bluff

They've played all the cards, very ineptly, and they are going bust. Let's just get it over with.

[peacetheonlyway]

18. Just so you Know (in Washington STate)

a state can ask the House to begin impeachment proceedings and Washington state is only one versus Vermont and New Mexico that still has a shot at doing this.

won't that be something the citizens of WA forcing the state of washington forcing the house to impeach.

it would demonstrate real citizen action at its best.

let's keep our fingers crossed in jan/feb. 2008 timeframe.

i believe my state will impress all of us.

this is one democratic liberal state if someone could talk to friggin Senator Patti Murray.
who responded to our movement wiht "I have 2 words, Dick Cheney" like she thought our bush impeachment was a joke and would go nowhere because who wants cheney as pres.

i think we should impeach them all but starting the ball on any of them will cause momentum and we might see folks jumping ship at spur of the moment. it's all on the table.

it's all possible.

THE PEOPLE HAVE POWER.

[Senator]

20. Send Patty Murray a link

...to my journal entry: Impeachophobia: False Memes.

She's making a public ass of herself.

---

[peacetheonlyway]

22. i will personally send this to ms. murray in various ways

fedex
in person
and on the cars of every frigging senate person in washington.

you have done an oustanding job.

thanks for your writing.

[Demeter]

21. Still Need One Patriotic Representative in the House

to bring your grassroots petition for impeachment to the table. So far, Pelosi has managed to convince the Reps from Vermont and New Mexico not to do so, which I find heinous.

[onenote]

30. ah, the old citizen action impeachment myth

I"m not sayin that trying to build support for impeachment at the state and local level is a bad thing. To the contrary, the only way impeachment is likely to happen (and I don't think it is likely) is if there is enough public outcry to force repubs to begin to jump ship so that the process would be at least somewhat bi-partisan.

But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that if Washington or Vermont or some other state passes a resolution calling for impeachment that it will, in and of itself, make any difference. The House is a very traditional place and it looks to precedent. In the case of the initiation of impeachment proceedings based on charges transmitted from the legislature of a state, there actually is such a precedent. And if you check it out, you'll see that the matter was referred to the HOuse Judiciary COmmittee. Thus, unless and until that bi-partisan support materializes, the situation probably would be no different than what we have now with the Cheney impeachment resolution -- referral to committee and no action.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Nothing "in itself" EVER makes a difference. Democracy is a...

...cumulative process. Which makes it a ripe target for smarmy defeatism.

NGU.

[onenote]

32. Not defeatism. Realism. Just getting a state to pass a resolution isn't the end of the story

Maybe that wasn't what the post I was resonding to was suggesting, but I've seen too many other posts here on DU that seem to think that there is an easy end-around that can be run to get impeachment started. And that's not the case. And thinking that impeachment is going to happen because of calls to Democratic members is also wishful thinking. Impeachment can happen, but only if there starts to be bi-partisan demands. And that will take grass roots efforts, which is why I support the efforts at the state and local level. But its important for people to understand that those efforts aren't some sort of short cut, but simply the first step in a long difficult process.

[ClassWarrior]

33. Of course. That's why you began with a derisive title.

:eyes:

NGU.

[BootinUp]

24. more like let them call our bluff?

There will be no convictions in the senate, and would be successfully and correctly portrayed as a waste of time. Investigations into wrong doing are perfectly justifiable however. And any criminal activities discovered will be prosecuted.

[ClassWarrior]

26. So how many times have you called your Rep this week to demand...

...he or she co-sponsor HR333, Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against Cheney**?

It's easy to remember - half of 666 - and toll-free numbers are below.

(And having a Rape-Publican Rep is no excuse for anyone. Call the Rep just for grins, then call Pelosi too...)

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

34. ?

NGU.