My disappointing response from Representative Udall regarding impeachment.

[CrispyQ]

Thank you for letting me know you think the House of Representatives should consider impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch.

The Constitution says "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States" can be removed from office upon impeachment for and conviction of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate has the sole power of trying a person who has been impeached. The Constitution defines "treason," and the meaning of "bribery" is generally well understood, but just what other offenses constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" for purposes of impeachment is a matter of longstanding debate - as demonstrated when the House debated and adopted articles of impeachment against President Clinton. That was the second time a President was impeached, and the second time that the Senate failed to convict, leaving the President in office.

I am not a lawyer, and cannot claim to be an expert on impeachment. However, based on what I know now, I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate for the House to consider impeaching either the President or Vice President. I opposed going to war in Iraq and disagree with many other policies of the Bush Administration, and will work to change those policies. But at this point I think those changes should come through the normal legislative and political processes, rather than through impeachment.

Thanks again for contacting me. I welcome your letters and e-mails and always listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say. For more information, visit my web site at http://markudall.house.gov/HoR/CO02/home.htm.

Warm Regards,

Mark Udall
Member of Congress

=====

Congressman Udall, if you want my support for your run for senate, reconsider your position on impeachment.

:banghead: :mad:

[blondie58]

1. hmmm....

well, being a fellow Coloradan, I think that I will have to contact Congressman Udall also. Isn't this the kind of situation that begs for impeachment?

[CODem]

2. Udall is right

Udall is exactly right. There has been no showing that Bush committed any "high crimes or misdemeanors." Being incompetent and wrong-headed isn't an impeachable offense. What specific crime did Bush commit?

Further, impeachment hearings would be a distraction from the most significant issues facing our country, including ending the war. Impeachment hearings would take months and a Senate trial -- which most certainly would result in an acquittal -- would be a waste of time.

The Republicans lost public support through their politicization of the impeachment process when they sought to oust Bill Clinton. The Democrats will suffer the same consequences if they attempt to impeach Bush. It would appear to be little more than an effort to overturn the 2004 election. In contrast, Richard Nixon was caught on tape conspiring to obstruct justice. Even Republicans had to concede in 1974 that Nixon had broken the law.

Plus, if Bush is impeached, Dick Cheney would become President -- and could run as the incumbent in 2008. Nobody wants that outcome.

[politicat]

3. Sorry, but I have to disagree.

Mark's still got my support for senate, and I think he's right. As much as I WANT to see an impeachment and conviction, it's too useful a tool to use right now.

See, here's the logic: We don't have to impeach. All we have to do is give them enough rope and let them hang themselves, probably forcing resignations as the crimes get prosecuted. They're already doing it. BUT we always have the threat of impeachment hanging over the administration. So if the Dim Son says he's going to veto something we see as critical (such as the minimum wage increase or some health care bill or something else that we have to have ASAP) we have the sword of Damocles out and ready.

Emotionally, I want to repay the shitful way they abused the impeachment laws just as much as you do. Emotionally, I want to see the Dim Son taken to the woodshed for a come to jeebus meeting. Emotionally, I want him in the public stocks from sunrise to sunset every day for the next ten years, and spending his nights in a dirt-floored shack. But those are the reactions of an outraged ape, and that's just the savannah in my primate brain talking. The logical part of me says that we have to do the right thing and not abuse that too-vague phrase because some day we may need it for more than incompetence, grifting, cronyism and demagoguery. Those things aren't illegal, they're just not things we should see in presidents.