We know
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2759379">all we need to know to make the case the Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution and future of this nation. (Even if there weren't so many other crimes to choose from, the world-wide hatred of Bush's USA alone endangers us; removing them to redeem ourselves is a defensive act.)
Members of Congress could introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney when they convene on January 4, 2007. Committee hearings to review and make the case could be underway in days. Since there is no need for investigation, the hearings could move very quickly. (Note: Calling for an investigation is a declaration that we don't have a case -- a lie that undercuts the powerful case we have.)
Once they get serious and declare their intent to impeach and remove, there is no set sequence of events. Between the threat of impeachment and removal from office (via resignation or impeachment) the possibilities are infinite. It could take weeks. It could take months. They could be out by President's Day (Feb 19, 2007).
Simply getting serious about impeachment could be enough for Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy" in order to keep the WH in Republican hands -- that is, Cheney resigns, Bush nominates a replacement that both the Senate and the House are willing to confirm; Bush resigns, VP becomes P and nominates their own VP. (The Bush WH is an albatross that Republicans may be more than happy to be rid of, particularly when the risk of involuntary removal is President Pelosi.)
Despite the certitude with which so many prognosticators tell us that there's "no chance" of conviction in the Senate, we have as much, if not more reason to be optimistic than pessimistic.
Public reaction is a powerful driving force. Even with the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda coming from the establishment -- both Dems and Repubs -- Newsweek found that 51% want impeachment to be a priority, and only 44% believe "it should not be done." If they get serious about impeachment, the accusations will be the number 1 topic of public debate. The 51% is almost guaranteed to shoot up to more than 60% overnight. (For more on this, see the discussion in
http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Results on Impeachment.
Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements to nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar) who may find they simply can't stomach exonerating.
Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).