Resolutions on impeachment are a waste of time! Prove me wrong.

[kay1864]

Honestly people, I'm worried about these IL and CA resolutions being submitted under a Puke-controlled House. They'll die in committee.

Here's the process, according to Wikipedia:

A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determines whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment they will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more "articles of impeachment." The Impeachment Resolution, or Article(s) of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee's recommendations.

Here's what worries me: When (if?) we gain control of the House in November, the same kind of resolution in spring 2007 (but coming from the House, rather than state legislatures) will have less momentum, since "we went through this in May 2006".

I just see this thing kind of fizzling out in the current House. Does that then hurt the chances of the "real" impeachment next year?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. It means nothing without the means to go further.

Bush is not running for re-election - the rest of the party, on the other hand, is. We need Bush as an albatross, not a one-man sinking ship.

[kay1864]

3. Well yeah, he's useful as an albatross...

But he's an albatross now. Me, I'd rather see him (and Darth Dick) out. And I don't see that happening under the Pukes. Which is why I'd rather see this happen next February, not now.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I'm sorry, but I fail to see your logic.

What, is he going to suddenly stop being an albatross or something? Why do we want him out when he can continue to do so much more harm to his party by staying put?

You kick him out of office, you give them a fresh start. You put a new person in power, they get essentially a clean slate. Why in the world would you give them that???

[kay1864]

10. You're kidding me, right?

You'd rather he remain in office, since he's so useful as an albatross?

Disagree 100%. I want the bastard out. Dickie too.

And the "new person in power" (under a Dem-controlled House) would be a Dem, not a Puke.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Have you read your Constitution lately?

Or have you ever read it?

The replacement would NOT be a Democrat. It would just be another underling in the Bush administration.

[kay1864]

16. Please read my post more carefully.

I specifically said under a Dem-controlled House. Which would result in President Nancy Pelosi (D).

(and yes, I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thank you)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Where in the Constitution do they perform impeachments in unison?

Last I checked, they do them one at a time. There's no way you'd remove all of the administration fast enough to actually make it that far down the pecking order.

[kay1864]

29. Not "that far down" at all.

Like I said above, if both Chimpy and Darth were impeached, Pelosi is automatically next.

[flyarm]

19. you are joking right??

so you are saying..leave the murdering liar in so he can dump a nuke on iran..and god knows how much more harm here..and how many more dead soldiers for lies...so we have no one new with a clean slate??

so how many more murders of innocent people are you willing to sacrifice so we don't have this so called clean slate..and it helps us politically??

how much blood in the streets are you willing to accept politically?

does right and wrong and truth an lies have any bearing on your worrying about a clean slate??

ahhhh i have a serious problem with that logic...

is your kids life on the line in iraq??

so we should leave a murdering failure in place so it helps us politically...i do not see how that helps anyone..no one..especially our troops..who are used like pawns by this fucker in our white house...

so politically..don't remove him..because it will make for nasty??

it is nasty..lying to war is nasty..destroying our constitution is nasty..making us into a fascist state is nasty...

his fucking polls drop and out comes the boogyman..that is nasty to the victims of 9/11 families because they know this fucker uses their dead...
thatssss real nasty...

and thats real political...and that is more than enough reason for us all to take to the streets..and get this fucker out of our white house!

now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that fucker uses my co-workers deaths every fucking time his polls fall.,.and i for one want that fucker out of my white house today..today isn't soon enough!

fly

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. How does even one letter of what you typed mean ANYTHING if we

can't actually remove them from power?

[flyarm]

34. history will judge us all.....and it will not be kind.,

and future generations will know if we stood up as a people against these crimes..or if we said..well lets just wait..nothing here move on..it would not help us politically if we stand up ...

i want my voice heard...

i want my voice to be marked in history..that i stood up against these criminals...

that they were not approved of or their crimes were not approved of by many americans!

i want my children to know that..i want the world to know that..and i want my grandchildren and great grand children to know that one day..

i want this time in our present history to show ..we the people ...stood up against these murdering criminals ..and were willing to risk families, jobs, friends, and being chastised to stand up for what is right..and to stand up for truth...

we were willing to say ..enough..not in my name!

fly

[pat_k]

56. Members of Congress take an INDIVIDUAL oath and each must make an . .

. . .INDIVIDUAL choice: stand up and call on their colleagues to put an end to bushcheney's treasonous exercise of unrestrained power OR break their oath.

You get it, but I wish the "futility" people would. Predictions of success or failure have nothing to do with the decision to act when principle demands it.

It's about principle, not political expedience, but perhaps they'll start to see that it's the RIGHT thing when they "get" that it's the WINNING thing to do. We can help open their eyes by going all out for candidate who are running on Impeachment.

Check out the DU Challenge to keep the
"Be Patriotic! Impeach Bush" billboard up
(Sheeler for U.S. Senate)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1011338&mesg_id=1011338

Related:

The Third Man (Providence Journal editorial 23-Apr)

[berni_mccoy]

7. It's a BIG ASSUMPTION... to assume the Dems get the House back

And even if they do, it doesn't mean they get the Senate back (and chances are slim). So should we NEVER impeach? I think the TIME HAS COME... Prosecution of a CRIMINAL doesn't wait to get the RIGHT jury, they prosecute when they have THE CASE.

Well, we have THE CASE. And AMERICA SEES IT and WILL BE THE JURY. If the REPUKES FAIL TO IMPEACH NOW, THEY WILL ALL LOSE THEIR SEATS. Then the DEMS WOULD WIN BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE. Then they can impeach again.

[kay1864]

11. Actually that's not quite my assumption.

My assumption is that impeachment under the current House will never make it out of committee. Whereas with a Dem-controlled House, it will at least make it to the Senate.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Assume away, and if we don't impeach now and don't win the House or Senate

Then we won't be able to impeach, ever.

[kay1864]

18. True enough, however...

Under the current House, we won't be able to impeach either, if the resolution doesn't make it out of the (GOP-controlled) Judiciary Committee. Do you honestly think it will?

[berni_mccoy]

38. I think we have a better chance now...

Because:

1. Repukes need to get re-elected. Repuke congressmen are having a tough time. If they think it will help them politically, they will vote to impeach in the house (hoping it dies in the Senate)
2. We have the case. If Fitz asks the Grand Jury to indict, it's an automatic impeachment. Not to mention soooo many other good reasons to impeach.
3. Rove and the GOP-political machine are pre-occupied right now.
4. Bush is approaching Impeachable Polling Levels... most Americans think Impeachment is a good idea and Bush is at 32 or lower approval rating.
5. GOP members are starting to question Oil/War issues.

If we wait until the election, the question will undoubtably be asked: "If Bush was so bad, why didn't you move to impeach earlier...?" We are damned if we do, and damned if we wait. So, my take is, there's no time like the present.

[onenote]

43. then why is there no movement on Conyers resolution?

Conyers introduced a resolution asking for the creation of a select committee to investigate the run up to the war and to make recommendations regarding possible impeachment. It sits in the Rules Committee. If your theory about the repubs being willing to move against chimpy was correct, wouldn't this be the vehicle? They could distance themselves by setting up a select committee without actually conceding anything. The fact is that the repubs in Congress realize that if they impeached chimpy tomorrow, it wouldn't get them any votes come November, and would only alientate what's left of their base.

onenote

[berni_mccoy]

50. Some forms DO NOT REQUIRE Committee review

From the Rules of the House:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_house_rules_manual&docid=hrmanual-59

In the <<NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the
House.>> House of Representatives there are various methods of setting
an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the
responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469;
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which
is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491,
2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the
hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-
42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III,
2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a
State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III,
2488);

Conyer's RESOLUTION can't gain ground because it's going THROUGH committee as required. A State Legislature or Grand Jury can START IMPEACHMENT. The vast majority of Repukes MAY NOT agree with the select few controlling the committee.

[onenote]

52. self-delete

[onenote]

54. Not correct

The House is a very traditional place and it looks to precedent. Those funny little numbers in parantheses in the article quoted (III, 2469) aren't there just for fun. They are references to something called "Hind's Precedents" which was published by authority of an act of Congress in 1907. The precedent cited in connection with the initiation of impeachment proceedings by charges transmitted form the legislature of a state can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=hinds_prec_vol_iii&docid=f:hinds_lxxviii.pdf

If you read it, you'll see that the resolution conveying the resolution of the state of Florida was referred to the HOuse Judiciary COmmittee. While the Committee eventually reported the matter back to the full House in that case, there's nothing that would require them to do so.

The grand jury example is another case in point. If you find Hind's description (III, 2488), you'll see that the charges were sent to committee in that case as well.


onenote

[kay1864]

45. All that is true, IF (and it's a big IF)

The resolution makes it out of committee. If it doesn't, then the *other* House Pukes aren't affected, since they didn't have to vote on it.

And if the MSM don't make an issue out of the resolutions, then they don't affect the committee Pukes in November, since their constituents won't be much aware of it.

But I agree, damned if we do, and damned if we wait. It's sad that we have to even consider the best strategy.

And (I would assume) House Dems are considering all these options as well.

[gordianot]

2. But they are so much fun to think about.

They give the boys a Faux news something to look forward to. The majority may come someday. My only real worry is Bush may get even.

[kay1864]

5. Agreed, great fun.

I *love* the wording of the IL resolution. I've read it twice so far.

Or will any activity this year be a non-issue, if *next* year's House Judiciary Committee has a Dem majority? (I'm sorta re-thinking my position. Maybe.)

[shraby]

4. It's the only right thing to do.

To inject politics into it is wrong. This man is dangerous to our country and that should be the one and only consideration. If it flounders in the House, it can still be done after the elections. The important thing, it's the right thing to do.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. To inject politics into politics is wrong?

Are you kidding me? This IS politics we're talking about here.

[flyarm]

9. don't want to flame..but i think you are incorrect...this sends a loud

and clear message to those in washington in congress ..that we the people are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore..it send them a very clear message from their home town voices...enough...we have had enough..do your job or we will do it without you..and replace you..

its all "we the people" have left for the crimes perpetrated on this nation..and her people by these fucking criminals in our white house and in this congress!

we have had enough..now do your job or get the fuck out of the way..because we will do it for you...we are telling them this way ...they have now become irrellevant!

and this is only the beginning!
to do otherwise ..is irresponsible to our duties as citizens of this country..and it is being negligent to our constitutional duties of "we the people"

fly

[kay1864]

12. No flaming taken!

This is exactly the sort of response I was looking for.

Like I said, I love these resolutions. I'm just concerned that they will hurt the "real" impeachment next spring.

OTOH, as someone pointed out above, if we *don't* get control of the House in November :scared:, then the current resolutions might be our only chance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. OTOH, if they get slapped down now the voters will remember

WHO slapped it down, and that could give us a Diebold-proof majority in kicking those politicos to the curb. That would improve the chances of an impeachment after the election.

[flyarm]

32. hurt what next spring..unless i have the peach in my hand..i can't eat it.

i can not and will not wait..we have waited too damn long in my opinion to take this into our own hands...

i am through with waiting..

wtf..the media won't even report this on tv

we should all take to the streets in support of these bills en-mass when these
bills will be voted for..

that is our responsibilty..under this constitution..

this adminstration broke laws..our laws...our constitutional laws ..and our moral laws...that must be held accountable!

if the peach is in my hand i can eat it..

if the peach isn't in my hand ..how will i ever know if i get to eat a peach ever again??

fly

[kay1864]

33. I guess I'm concerned that...

the Pukes will snatch the peach from your hand before you even get to look at it.

Then next spring, the public will be going "you want the peach AGAIN?! You had it in your hand LAST year!"

OTOH, if the MSM don't give the resolutions much airtime (especially if it dies in committee), then there won't really be momentum to lose.

[flyarm]

36. they wouldn't give you the peach if you were starving and begging

they never would , they never will...so do we wait for starvation???

don't worry they will always genuflect in church ..while you starve...

i am getting my peach now ...because to count on them later..hell..i know better..


there are still bones of the dead of 9/11 in the ground at wtc...those were my co-workers...and my neighbors..i think we have waited long enough...more than long enough...

fly

[RufusEarl]

20. Correct!

We've been saying for years now, why don't the republicans at least do oversight on this admin. But no they have set on there hands and done nothing, and let this guy get away with literally get away with murder.

But now some state rep's are calling for impeachment, if this doesn't get the attention of congress nothing will. And state houses are were the people speak to the national leaders, and it should take about six months to get there attention about time for the midterm elections.

[Atman]

13. It is absolutely NECESSARY as an affirmation of LAW

That is the only reason. I don't see how, given the time left in Bush's term and the number of republican jack-boots who will still be there after Diebold steels 06, that Bush can actually be removed from office. I just don't see it happening. BUT...Simply introducing the Articles Of Impeachment will put the dems ON RECORD as caring enough about the constitution to hold the president accountable for his law breaking. Because it will come out in the end. Bush's lawbreakin WILL be exposed. The democrats should be on the side that can say "I told you so, and I tried to do something about it!" rather than on the side of the dumbasses who will claim they didn't see what was happening.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

17. There ya go. Refuse to fight the good fight.

If not you, who? If not now, when?

[PublicWrath]

21. If a state's impeachment resolution makes it to the Judiciary Committee

Will there be a debate on the merits? Would such a debate be televised?
Or would it be a quick matter of members issuing opinions and voting yea or nay?

[kay1864]

24. Darn good questions!

I'm guessing that the Committee meetings are not televised (although there would be a debate--but behind closed doors. I think.)

Were the Committee meeting televised when they impeached Clinton? Anybody remember? I only remember the full House proceedings being televised.

[patcox2]

28. That would be decided by the commitee.

And if the republicans are still the majority, the assured answer is that there will be no vote, no answer, no debate, no discussion, it will simply die.

[patcox2]

25. Counterproductive; don't brandish a weapon unless in position to use it.

Its like the boy who cried wolf. The public will grow weary of impeachment talk and then, when there is a democratic mnajority and we could do it, the public will be like "what, again, haven't we been throught this?"

[kay1864]

30. That's exactly my concern.

Loss of momentum.

[flyarm]

41. it wouldn't be wolf if a million americans marched on dc when it

went to congress...i would say 10 million sould be there.....but americans don't give a shit enough to get off their asses and fight for their constitution...but a million is possible!

fly

[endarkenment]

26. Gee I don't know, but

when the constitution has been scrapped, laws violated, crimes committed, when the very definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is obviously applicable, when the future of the Republic itself is at stake, when there is a madman ruling the nation threatening others with nuclear devastation, we sort of have an obligation to at least go on the record as not going along with the bullshit.

I think we are in a situation analagous to Germany in the 30's. Perhaps there is little we can do to alter the course of events we are on, but our children and their children, if indeed we survive this mess, will demand to know 'what did you do to stop this madness' and I think we have an ethical obligation to be able to honestly answer 'we did everything we could, we tried everything'.

[kay1864]

31. Excellent points!

Sad that we even have to think of the optimal strategy. The bastard just needs to be out out OUT of office.

[flyarm]

37. exactly!!!!!!!!!!! endarkenment!!..you get it!!..thanks! n/t

[PublicWrath]

35. I'm just wondering......

the wiki entry says that an impeachment resolution is "typically referred" to the House Judiciary Committee. Perhaps there is some exception, some way to bypass the committee?

If so many dem state legislators are pushing impeachment resolutions, then the dem inner circle has undoubtedly discussed and sanctioned this effort. Given the risk that premature resolutions could possibly defuse a later impeachment process under a dem Congress, I'm inclined to think the dem party has more in mind than making a gesture.

[onenote]

39. it might, conceivably and rarely, go to another committee

but its going to a committee. And when it goes to a committee, it will die and quiet, lonely death so long as the repubs control the House.

Its not a debatable point. We know that in Dec. 2005, Conyers introduced a resolution calling for the creation of select committee to investigate the run-up to the war and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. It was referred to the Rules Committee and has not be heard of since.

Less well known facts: In May 2004, Rangel introduced a resolution of impeachment against Rumsfeld. It was referred to Judiciary where not a thing happened.

In September 1998, Hastings introduced a resolution of impeachment against Ken Starr. Same result.

Hell, even when the Democrats have had a substantial majority of the House, it doesn't mean that a resolution of impeachment is going to ever see the light of day. In early 1991, when the Democrats occupied over 60 percent of the House seats, Henry Gonzalez twice introduced impeachment resolutions against Bush I. Both were referred to committee (one to Judiciary and one to some other committee, not judiciary). Not a peep about them after that.

onenote

[kay1864]

42. Big difference between Bush Sr and Chimpy though

WAY too much talk about impeachment this time around. WAY too low poll numbers this time around.

If the Dems control the Judiciary Committee next January, a resolution will certainly make it to the floor of the House. But beyond that, who knows...

[onenote]

46. if the Dems have enough of a majority, maybe

but if, as is more likely to be the case, we only have a bare majority of 1 to 5 seats, margin...we'll get investigations, hearings, all kinds of good stuff. But we probably won't get impeachment.

onenote

[kay1864]

47. We don't need a large majority

If we have even a 1-seat majority in the House, we automatically get control (Dem chair) of all committees. And a 1-seat majority on all committees. Thus impeachment would get to the main body of the House.

What happens in the Senate, however, is anybody's guess. Depends on what Chimpy's done up to that point.

[onenote]

49. maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't

Democrats don't all vote in lockstep. And if by counting votes, its clear that a majority of Democrats might not vote for impeachment, the Committee isn't going to put the issue out there just to fail. The Democrats strategy doesn't require impeachment, which could take most of the remaining two years of chimpy's term to accomplish. What the Democrats get, even with a one-vote majority, is the ability to call hearings,subpoena witnesses, investigate and basically put not just chimpy but all repubs in Congress on the hot seat as we head into the 2008 elections. Its not necessary to impeach chimpy and I doubt that the Democrats will make the effort if they have only a bare majority. They can accomplish what they want -- exposing chimpy and the repubs to the voters before 2008 -- without the more emotionally charged and complex fight over impeachment.

onenote

[PublicWrath]

51. someone on another thread says it need not go to committee:

Do you think this is a correct interpretation? I don't understand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1011916&mesg_id=1013010

[onenote]

53. That is definitely an incorrect interpretation

The House is a very traditional place and it looks to precedent. Those funny little numbers in parantheses in the article quoted in your link (III, 2469) are references to something called "Hind's Precedents" which was published by authority of an act of Congress in 1907. The precedent cited in connection with the initiation of impeachment proceedings by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=hinds_prec_vol_iii&docid=f:hinds_lxxviii.pdf

If you read it, you'll see that the resolution conveying the resolution of the state of Florida in that case was referred to the HOuse Judiciary COmmittee. While the Committee eventually reported the matter back to the full House in that case, there's nothing that would require them to do so.

onenote

[PublicWrath]

55. That's a shame. But thanks for the clarification. n/t

[kay1864]

40. For impeachment of a President, I doubt they would deviate

from accepted protocol. Here's from the Wiki entry on that committee:

The Judiciary Committee is also the committee responsible for impeachments of federal officials, and approved articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998.

So it looks like we're stuck with that committee--and certain death under the GOP.

As for the Dem state legislators, you bring up an excellent point. You'd think that the IL and CA (et al) legislatures would have discussed this with the Dem members of the Judiciary Committee.

Then again, they might just be fed up. After the IL legislator (FSM's praise to her) discovered that Rule 630, it might be that all those state legislatures decided they could send a message, and didn't discuss it with the House Dems beforehand.

[onenote]

44. the state legislature resolution doesn't change the process

I not saying it shouldn't go forward because it sends a message. But as a practical matter, how does it change anything. You'd still need a member of Congress to present the Illinois resolution. But you don't need the Illinois legislature to do anything for that same member of Congress to introduce his/her own resolution. Maybe the act of the legislature will give someone the balls to stand up, but once they have, the resolution goes to Judiciary where, like resolutions of impeachment filed against Rumsfeld in 2004, against Ken Starr in 1998, and against Bush I in 1991, it will simply disappear.

onenote

[spanone]

48. Anything to put another burr under the bush* saddle.

More stress, more accountability (or appearance of), just more shit for the man who has brought us so much shit.