My Prediction: Bush Impeached/Resigns by Sept, 2005

[berni_mccoy]

I'd love to see the election overturned, but let's face it, even if Ohio is turned over to Kerry, the Senate Republicans will contest the election and they have the majority. This will be the most heated battle in the senate, and what would it take to win if we could.

More likely, I see the investigations of election fraud continuing well into next year. This has the makings of another Watergate level scandal. The Bush admin took a huge credibility blow this week (Kerik), and it's serverly hurt their reputation with congressional republicans.

Also, with this scandal, the whistleblowers are open and loud, and the people are getting hungry for congressional action (which IS happening, but quietly). We've already got GOP members going to trial over this election (see the phone jamming incident in NH).

There has been a mass exodus in the CIA and the FBI is seeing a similar trend. These people are leaving for a very good reason (it would take a lot to get soooo many people to quit): they won't support an illegal administration or one that operates illegally. Some of these people will speak out.

The Democrats in Congress are showing organization of a movement to get to the bottom of this fraud. Will it take time? Certainly, and thus I predict impeachment/resignation of Bush by Sept. 2005. This president is corrupt, there's no doubt about it. The election has clear evidence of fraudulent activity, we have witness testimony and cover-up responses from state officials and legislators. DU has pushed the boulder till it started rolling down the hill and now there is nothing the GOP can do but try to scramble out of the way. Congress is steering this thing now, and the best thing we can do is run along behind, feeding them with information and hope as we discover it. I certainly want to be there when the boulder comes crashing down on those responsible for trying to tear down our democracy.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. Only if Dems take Congress in '06

Personally, I'm a little skeptical that this thing will blow into a Watergate-like scandal - the press is lazy and Congress is Republican-controlled.

However, in the event that tons of fraud does emerge, then expect Republicans to do nothing, for them to resoundingly lose the '06 midterms, and THEN Bush gets impeached.

[googly]

33. Exactly right, unless congress turns dem in 2006, there is zero chance

of impeachment. The partisanship in Washington is rabid on both sides.

[Red State Blues]

47. One good thing

If we show massive undeniable fraud before the house certifies the electoral vote AND they still swing it to Bush OR If the shite hits the fan after the coronation and the 'pubs do nothing THEN the gloves come totally off, all pretense of civility is over; on a local level it would be either denouce B* AND the scum that refused to impeach him or prepare to get called an anti-democratic pig-fucker to your face!

Sometimes living in a red state can get to you.

[googly]

66. I know how you feel....only time will tell what's gonna happen.

[sled]

51. Cheney=Agnew, Bush=Nixon

Just keep plugging along, doing the good work...& McCain could very well, be the next Gerald Ford...

Interesting that Rove chose McKinley, as the pattern for Jr.'s administration...

Biography of William McKinley
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wm25.html

The real story behind Rove, McKinley and ‘Dollar Mark’
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/10154514.htm

Bush's Solid, McKinley-Style Victory
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot4nov04,0,1413126.column?coll=la-util-op-ed

[berniew1]

58. Bush in trouble irregardless of whether he's allowed to steal this electio

9/11 is unraveling>> its clear the Gov't was complicit and Gov't story doesn't hold up. Cheney in trouble because of Palme leak, etc. They've committed lots of impeachable offenses. Public will become aware and fed up with incompetance and corruption.

[wrate]

73. Which won't happen since the Repugs control the Vote counting. n/t

[pointsoflight]

2. The purging of the CIA could be key.

There could be some POed individuals with valuable info to leak to the right people.

[joeunderdog]

49. My Prediction:

Economic Armageddon
Arctic Meltdown, Global Warming> Planet freeze
Social Security Dismantlement
FBI renamed BushCo
Nuclear Holocaust

Don't worry about impeachment. It won't matter.

[genieroze]

55. One really doesn't want to PO the CIA, * is an idiot. eom

[wrate]

74. That's yet to be seen. So far, no signs of CIA caring much about how

they've been humiliated by the * Admin. Either that or they cannot do a thing about it.

[KaryninMiami]

3. Ok. I'll accept this. September 05 is ok. But not a month longer...

In fact, since my birthday is in September, if this is when it happens, I will buy you a drink. Or 2. Better yet- champagne. Deal?

I need a little hope tonight- having one of this "when is it going to happen" frustration moments after such a difficult and disappointing day. I think we all had huge expectations about Ohio today and many were really sad when there were no major fireworks.

But you are correct. These things take time and this thing- taking down the entire operation of the GOP and proving them to be illegitimate is - well it's BIG- really big and it's not going to happen quickly.

So I'll wait and keep the champagne chilled... :)

[anamandujano]

48. maybe they waited to see if blackwell would certify

a count he knew to be faulty--there must be a law

[zann725]

68. That's what I felt also. I think that's why Arnebek waited to file...

It seems that technically they just had to file the claim before the Electoral count, and if Blackwell proceeded...he committed Fraud. Plus I heard him being interviewed by Press right after the Vote, and he said, 'A claim had to be filed before the vote, and it wasn't.' He also said that 'Kerry is not disputing the results.' Both of these things are NOT true. And he said them on camera. So he's perjuring himself all over the place. And to limit his perjury, I note that yesterday he started having a "LaParo" character making 'statements' for him...which means they are at least smart enough to start limiting the Perjury damage to Blackwell in future statements.

[anamandujano]

77. he's not under oath yet so he can still lie

and he seems to be doing so at every opportunity

[Syrinx]

4. I hope he is impeached AND removed from office

Remember Bill Clinton was impeached over a bj.

[imenja]

8. with a Republican controlled House

Dem's control nothing.

[Syrinx]

11. I know that

(to quote our great president)

And all I did was wish. But maybe if the vote-rigging is shown to be true, maybe, just maybe, there are enough decent Republicans that would step forward like they did in Nixon's case.

[St. Jarvitude]

17. Also remember the couple of Repubs that stood with Clinton

I think five voted in the Senate trial for acquital. A handful voted against a few of the impeachment articles in the House as well.

Of course, that was more than five years ago, and the Pukes have become even more evil and twisted since then.

[Syrinx]

18. I think Lindsey Graham might be a candidate to flip

He's always seemed kind of reasonable for a Republican, and his personal issues don't exactly mesh with the Republican base.

[St. Jarvitude]

21. I think he may have voted against some of the impeachment charges

When they were being brought up in the House.

I'm not sure... will have to do some googling.

[Syrinx]

26. I think you're right

He voted to impeach, but not on all charges. I don't remember the exact charges.

[Red State Blues]

45. You may be right but

I think Lindsey's game is to start as a moderate/undecided so he gets "statesman" status and THEN he lays the hammer down. No one I know in SC believed that he hadn't already made up his mind before the hearings.

That said, he could flip on Bush.

[Liberty Belle]

36. Not decent, but scared Republicans.

If moderate Republicans feel that their seats are threatened in primary elections by the right-wingers in the White House who control the voting machines, perhaps a few might join with DEMS to oust Bush.

[liberalla]

37. "I hope he is impeached AND removed from office"

Me too... but won't that leave Cheney in charge?

He makes my stomach turn. He's worse than Bush... but maybe he would be implicated also... then Hastert?

Impeachment and removal from office doesn't put Kerry in... but it would be a huge blow to the Repug party.

[blokenblue]

42. Impeach Both of them

I hope both of them are impeached and thrown in to prison! Lets make them do hard time!

[woodsprite]

54. Yeah, but with the stress Cheney would have a heart attack. n/t

[imenja]

5. Wishful thinking

I don't see it happening. I guess we'll know in a year's time. The other poster is right that impeachment could only proceed if the Dem's take back the House and conviction if they win the Senate. Obviously that's not possible until Jan of 2007.

[Wabbajack]

29. Need 67 in the senate to remove

I don't see many 'pukes voting to remove. I don't think there are enough senate seats up for us to get 67 in 06.

[imenja]

31. I think you're right on that

[Doremus]

6. When you control the elections, you don't have to worry about losing

Thoughts of impeachment and repug losses in '06 may be comforting, but I'm more of a pragmatist.

When you own the tabulators and the people who control them, you own democracy.

There will be no impeachment while repugs own Congress and they'll own Congress as long as they own the election machinery.

[read the law first]

7. So that the Repugs could run an incumbent against Hillary in 2008?

No thanks. the Chimp is done. He can't run again. We can survive the Chimp until we get Hillary in 2008.

[saracat]

30. OMG No! Hillary is adivisive figure and her voting record is awful.

We might as well vote repug!

[proudtobeadem]

9. From your key board to God's ears.

[Georgia_Dem]

15. Don't think so.

You know, there's a fine line between optimism and hoping for the impossible. When Nixon was forced to resign, who controlled Congress?
That's right, the Democrats.

After '06, the Democrats may be able to gain enough House membership to pass impeachment there, but the Senate? The Democrats can realistically get 54-58 seats at best. In which case, if all the Democrats and Jim Jeffords voted, it would take 8-12 Republicans to activate impeachment.

No, I think overturning the Ohio result is a more likely scenerio.

[newyawker99]

57. Hi Georgia_Dem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Stand and Fight]

61. Dammit...

What is up with people and misrepresenting the facts? The Democrats did not CONTROL Congress. When you say that you are saying they controlled both parts of Congress. Congress consists of two separate houses -- The House of Representatives and the Senate. When Nixon was impeached the Republicans had lost some seats in the Senate, but they maintained control. The Democrats had control of the House of Representatives, which is charged with bringing forward charges of impeachment.

People... Do a little research. Don't just spout off information and thereby misinform others. Sorry, but it is just really annoying as hell when people speak as if they know what they're talking about and they don't.

SOURCE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/7/newsid_3697000/3697098.stm

[Georgia_Dem]

76. Actually, the Democrats did control the Senate at the time.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Look at the 1970s balances of power.

[BrotherBuzz]

10. Can I wish for the fateful helicopter exit...

on the 11th of September? Seems appropriate, somehow.

[TexasChick]

14. I don't have a link anymore to the thread, but someone posted an

excerpt from a psychic's prediction about Smirk. He said that September 11, 2005 would be a significant day for President Bush, either he would be hurt physically or even killed, or suffer defeat in some way (paraphrasing this). I can go and try to find it.

[idealista]

25. I've been thinking he could try for asylum in a banana republic

But no, that would rob us of the joy of ticking off the parole board denials.

Seriously, I don't think even if this arm of the octopus is severed, the rest of the monster won't try to regroup and push - push - push its greedy and insidious agenda down our throats forever and anon.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Hey naysayers... your point is valid

If you assume the evidence is not SO DAMING that he has no choice but to resign or face impeachment. Remember... the Republican senators don't want to lose their seats in 2006 and if it appears that they are defending someone who isn't defendable, they run the risk of losing control.

And remember, it only takes a simple majority in the House of Representatives (not Senate) impeach; it takes 2/3rds to return a guilty conviction (on any one of the articles of impeachment). I didn't say what the verdict would be.

[Stand and Fight]

62. Good deal!!

I see that YOU have done your research. Kudos to you!!!

:pals:

[TexasChick]

13. Did any of you DUers see this in the LBN forum? Don't know if it will be

any good for these Dems to try to impeach the Chimp (which is what it looks like), but it is encouraging to read about it, at least:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1068517

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Awesome!!

[floridadem30]

16. Let's hope he doesn't do too much damage or we lose anymore of our freedo

m.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. I was just getting ready to post this

I think it fits in well right here



December 13th, 2004 8:54 pm
Senate Dems Plan Investigatory Hearings


By Jim Abrams / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - New Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Monday his party will launch investigative hearings next year in response to what he said was the reluctance of Republicans to look into problems in the Bush administration.

"There are too many unasked and unanswered questions and the American public deserves better," the Nevada senator said at a news conference. He will formally succeed Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., as party leader next month.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who heads the Democratic Policy Committee, said the first hearing will be at the end of January and he suggested it might focus on contract abuse in Iraq. He said the policy committee, which has held occasional investigative hearings in the past, planned to convene at least one such hearing a month.

Dorgan said that with Republicans controlling the White House and both the House and Senate, "the congressional watchdog remains fast asleep in this Congress."

GOP-led congressional committees have held oversight hearings on such subjects as prison abuse in Iraq and Pentagon waste, but Reid and Dorgan said they fell short of fulfilling the role of Congress to oversee executive branch excesses.

They said issues that "cry out" for closer investigation, in addition to contracting abuses in Iraq, include the administration's use of prewar intelligence and its reported effort to stifle information about the true cost of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Reid also mentioned global warming and the "No Child Left Behind" education program as topics that needed a closer look.

The Democratic-organized hearings would not have subpoena powers, but Dorgan said there are plenty of whistleblowers "anxious to tell their story."

The two senators said they would step aside whenever Republicans agreed to hold regular committee hearings on a topic, and they would ask Republicans to provide testimony or witnesses at the Democratic hearings. Dorgan said 12 to 15 Senate Democrats would lead the new oversight effort.

[Psyop Samurai]

44. This is what I like to hear!

I was ecstatic when Rep. Conyers et al decided they'd just go ahead and hold THEIR OWN hearings! I think that's exactly what needs to be done. Grant the whistleblowers (patriots) a forum. Get it on the record. If you can't go THROUGH the Republicans, go AROUND them. Do it for the "reality-based" citizens, the netizens. Make the media squirm in their complicity.

I endorse the usurper's exit in utter disgrace by September. And speaking of issues that "cry out" for closer investigation, don't forget Sibel Edmonds' petition for Release of Classified DOJ-IG Report on FBI Cover-Up, and the Justice for 9/11 petition to New York Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer. Let's lift every rock 'til they have nowhere left to hide!

}(

[old blue]

22. The way things are going in this land,

I think it is entirely plausible that, even should election fraud be shown to have taken place, either

a) a critical mass will not hear about it (a la Florida 2000, the hand-tabulated outcome of which I was not aware until a month ago)

b) even proof of election fraud will not dent bush's approval ratings significantly. I'm beginning to wonder just *what it would take* to change some people's knee-jerk approval of bush.

[malatesta1137]

23. lol

[OneBlueSky]

24. George Bush could be photographed naked in bed with . . .

Rumsfeld and Cheney (also naked) and the Republican House still wouldn't impeach him . . . (and if that image doesn't keep you up all night, you got a really strong stomach) . . .

[googly]

35. Ugh, eeiew, gross, what a disgusting thought.

[blokenblue]

43. Yeah And

It wouldn't matter how much they lied about what they were doing either. Its funny isn't it how lying is terribly wrong if your a democrat but if you are a republican, well then you get a pat on the back for it. :crazy:

[berni_mccoy]

27. We can start by arresting Blackwell

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x154424

[Nordic]

28. you're dreaming

after everything Bush has done, they should all be in jail now. I predicted they'd be under indictment before the 2004 election.

I was wrong.

I am now convinced they can only be stopped through force of some kind.

And I have no idea what that means.

[berni_mccoy]

38. See post #12 above

[saracat]

32. Nice dream. They will NEVER impeach and remove him.

We simply don't have the votes and the people don't care!

[googly]

34. I am impressed by your realism, clear & logical opinions in all your posts

[berni_mccoy]

39. See post #12 above

[Nordic]

40. we're already WAY past that point

c'mon. He went to war on a lie. The lie has been exposed. A WAR!!! Thousands dead, thousands wounded, bankrupting the country, no end in sight ......

Abu Ghraib? That should have brought down anybody.

Hell, I'm to tired now to list them all, but the list of obvious crimes goes on and on and on ....

And they keep getting a pass. From the media, and from the American people (in general).

This is the most blatantly criminal president in the history of the country.

And he just got reelected. People actually think his criminality is a good thing.

Nothing will stop him now except force. And where that will come from is beyond me.

[berni_mccoy]

41. Good point... I've been pushing impeachment for a long time too

Ever since Bush did his little WMD joke presentation at the fund-raising-elitist-dinner.

It's true that he should have been brought up already... but if there must be some level of recognition of compelling evidence for the Republicans in congress. They certainly are getting nervous now... that's for certain.

If Bush got caught with something so blatant it couldn't be ignored (remember, there are plenty of people who wanted the Iraq war and don't care about WMD; Abu Ghraib would take out Rumsfeld at best)... My gut tells me that the dems still in office know they got cheated and they are coming up with a plan B to nail the admin with... thus my prediction.

[segmentis]

69. Fix the media.

http://www.fairnessdoctrine.org

We need to get the MEDIA Act passed so the Fairness Doctrine at last becomes the law of the land.

Until this happens, the masses will remain unaware.

[Peace Patriot]

46. "And he just got reelected."

No, he didn't.

[WritersBlock]

50. Sorry to nitpick...

But wasn't the NH phone-jamming incident in the 2002 election, not this one?

[righteous1]

52. Yes, that is true n/t

[segmentis]

70. The official resigned...

...prior to *this* election (2004) to avoid a hullabaloo over his actions in '02.

[nmoliver]

53. I wish I were more optimistic

Analogies with past situations don't apply here. A scandal is not a scandal unless the media makes it one. Until then, he has a proven ability to survive any corruption, any crime, any scandal. During Watergate we had a Democratic Congress and a somewhat independent media.

Kerik's scandal about a nanny? Come on. That is Clinton-era stuff. Valerie Plame, WMD's, Bush v. Gore - now, those are scandals. And what about 9/11, the facts about those? He wasn't even held accountable for "not doing enough" to stop it.

Nixon resigned in disgrace. So did Agnew. Bush and Cheney have no shame or disgrace in them. There is nothing human to impel them to hang their heads, walk away or resign. And, of course, as others have said, the Republican Congress will not impeach them no matter what they do.

[segmentis]

72. The media has been complicit...

...in masking the fact that Kerik had a LOT more to worry about in any serious background check (which you'd think the administration would have done *before* nominating the corrupt bastard) than nanny illegalities.

Excellent details here:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen034063947dec03,0,2592726.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

[Peggy Day]

56. and that would leave Cheney? as president???? omg

[Guarionex]

71. no...

his ass will get tarred and feathered too...if Bush is corrupt, so is Cheney

[proudbluestater]

59. He who owns the machines owns the elections

This may have to get ugly before it gets fixed.

[McCamy Taylor]

60. not a chance, he loves playing commander in chief...

[WoodrowFan]

63. i'd take that bet.

Is $50.00 to much? There is zero chance, none, zip, nada chance that Congress would impeach shrub.

[fasttense]

64. I believe

But we need to get out in the streets and we need a leader.

We are ripe for a change. It may not happen before B*sh is in office but it will happen. Especially if we start marching. Protesters in the street is just the catalyst the "Honest" Repugs need and the slow Democrats want. Now if we could get us a leader everyone could support. How about Dean or Clark. I've given up on Kerry.

[Broken Acorn]

65. Why does everyone keep saying if we win in 2006? lol

There is no way we will win anything with the electronic machines being controlled by Repukes. A lot of us here get, but others do not.

We can't wait and hope that things will change in 2006! They 'changed' in 2004 (Kerry won) but the machines were rigged. It's just going to get worse.

Sorry to highlight the bad news.

[wrate]

75. Actually, things changed in 2000! 2004 is just a repeat. n/t

[garybeck]

67. problems with impeachment

1) have to prove that bush knew

2) repubs in house and senate would have to vote against bush

3) would just be replaced by another republican (Cheney or whoever's next)


if we can't overturn the election, I think we set our sights on more realistic goals:

1) prosecution of K. Blackwell, Triad, and Diebold employees who participated, hopefully including K. Rove, C. Hagel.

2) real election reform, including

a)provisions on what to do if a stolen election is discovered after inaguration

b) verifiable ballots

c)reinstitute the fairness doctrine

d) fact checking in campaign commercials

e) the rest of the stuff on the Voters' Bill of Rights on http://nov3.us