OK, someone explain to me why he will not be impeached?

[Clinton Crusader]

I cannot think of a better candidate, truly. Didn't they impeach Big Dawg for lying?? Frick and Frack have been lying about 9/11 and this war since day one, as far as I can see. Maybe I've missed something, entirely possible, as my dad passed right before Christmas and my full attention has not been on 'things'. But I do repsectfully ask why he will not be impeached.

Thanks all.

[Sugarcoated]

1. "They" keep saying there's not enough votes.

[Clinton Crusader]

2. Surely with our control now...

we could scare up enough votes..

No?

[Sugarcoated]

6. I haven't done the math on it

but it does seem insane if there weren't enough votes to impeach a President who's lied, lied and lied some more, AND broken the law. Put our men and women in harms way so carelessly. If EVER there was a President who deserved it . . .

[treestar]

42. It cynically assumes that all Repubs will vote against impeachment

even if there is proof * lied. Which may be a reasonable assumption at first glance, but it is not impossible enough of them would do the right thing. In fact, if party line was the only predictor, then Clinton would have been convicted - wasn't there a Repuke majority in the Senate at the time?

[pnwmom]

50. A 2/3 majority is required for conviction in the Senate.

The Republicans did not have the 67 votes to convict Clinton.

And we're not even close to having 67 votes for impeaching Bush now in the Senate. Maybe, if situations develop in the future, we will. But not now.

[treestar]

57. But did they vote only along party lines, or do you suppose they

would? I'm not saying they won't, but there are some differences in the two cases - the people were not so hot to have Clinton impeached for his lying about an adulterous affair, but here, the people might be hot to impeach * when he lied about getting us into a war. Then there would have to be good evidence of it, but if there were, *'s crimes are so much more serious.

[pnwmom]

76. Down the road, depending on what investigations turn up,

anything might happen. Including plenty of votes from Republican Senators to convict. I just don't think we're there yet.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. One count was 50/50 one count was 55 to acquit 45 to convict

No Democrat voted to convict on either account. So basically it was along party lines without the moderate Republicans even supporting it.

[GOTV]

53. How do you think Lieberman will vote? n/t

[treestar]

56. Not sure, I don't know enough about him but have some vague idea

he was really buddy-buddy with * at least around the time he was leaving the Democratic party. But do you think he would feel compelled to vote for a conviction if the evidence against * was strong? The people of Connecticut are hard for me to fathom, since they voted him into office even though he is where he is - they must be very middle of the road, but if the evidence were good, then he might feel the pressure to vote for the conviction.

[GOTV]

70. I suspect evidence will have little bearing on most Senators.

Their top two concerns when figuring out what how to vote will be:

1 - what does my party want me to do.
2 - what do my constituents want me to do

in either order.

If support for removal is high in their state, they will vote to convict.
If the support for removal is tepid, they will vote with their party.
If the support for removal is low, they will vote to acquit.

So the evidence gathering should be geared to increase calls for removal from the constituents.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. You think we could get 2/3rds of the Senate?

You tell me where we get 66 Senators.

[lapfog_1]

17. IT's 67 not 66.

and that's to convict in the Senate (which forces a removal from office).

To impeach, a simple majority in the House is all that is required.

However, an impeachment without conviction won't do much to stop the war mongers. Still worth doing, IMHO.

The Dems should be on record with the facts that an impeachment might dredge up that Bush should NOT be president.

[pnwmom]

36. Impeachment without a conviction would be a waste of time.

In their endless investigations and impeachment of Clinton, the Republicans succeeded in innoculating the public against the shock of impeaching a President.

Now it's "Been there, done that," and "Look, another President's getting impeached."
"Big deal."

The only way to really wake up the public AND to effect change would be to convict Bush in a Senate trial, and we're nowhere close now to doing that. If enough Republicans turn on him in the next year, things might be different.

[treestar]

45. It still must have had some very negative political fallout

Without it, maybe Clinton could have gotten them to pass more bills or had the political will to veto some of their more right wing proposals.

[pnwmom]

48. And what negative political fallout would there be for Bush?

The Dems are already in control of both House and Senate. How many bills is Bush going to get them to pass?

Investigations alone will provide plenty of political fallout. Impeachment wouldn't add anything important, unless we can secure a conviction, too. Bottom line, I don't want him to be able to say he was impeached but found "not guilty."

[treestar]

60. That's true, though Clinton did sign some bills in his last term, so

they can find their way to accomodations on some things in that scenario.

But I do agree with your bottom line. It is not something to undertake unless the evidence is really good and the people seem to be clamoring for it. If it's at all doubtful, it's not worth it, especially with the Darth Cheney issue. He'd have to go too and at the same time or it's not worth it.

One wonders how the freepers felt about it had they gotten a conviction on Clinton. To them, Al Gore is the scariest of all scaries!

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Tell me exacly what was the poltiical fall out

oh yes the Pubbies LOST some seats in the 98 elections

[gilpo]

64. I disagree..

Impeachment will put the congress on record as trying to rein in the executive. It might not help with the current pResident, but it will help to control the power of the next president.

[pnwmom]

77. But impeaching Clinton did absolutely nothing to limit Bush's power.

[gilpo]

82. Clinton wasn't impeached over a power grab

This impeachment will be about curtailing the power of the executive.

[GOTV]

49. Impeachment without conviction is not worth it....

... because it stops nothing but does give Bush vindication that the whole RW media will wave in our faces at every opportunity.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Conviction is not impeachment. nt.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. What's the point then?

[Warren Stupidity]

69. The point is to bring the evidence out into the open.

The point is to follow the constitutional process for dealing with tyrants. If the Senate doesn't convict, that is on the conscience of the Senate. Do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.

[gilpo]

83. I agree. The evidence needs to be in the public record.

[Rosemary2205]

33. I think 67 Senators CAN be got.

Yes, it will take making deals and twisting arms in addition to massive public outcry. IMHO if the dems can get the media to start talking about crime and fraud in the White House on a daily basis then within 6 months to a year we could have President Pelosi.

It will not be easy, and there is a lot of wishful thinking involved because the media is so far up Bush's petard at the moment, but it's POSSIBLE.

[pnwmom]

38. It's dreaming to think we'd have President Pelosi.

If Bush actually thought he was at risk, he'd have Cheney resign first. Then he'd appoint a new, scandal free V.P. Then if Bush somehow were convicted in a Senate trial, or if he simply resigned, the new V.P. would become President and would be perfectly situated to run for President in 2008.

Someone, for example, like John McCain. Or maybe Jeb.

[Rosemary2205]

40. IMHO

I don't think Bush could get a Veep confirmed in time - he'd have to pick a liberal Republican that wants out of Iraq ASAP and will raise taxes in order to make it through in time. IMHO Bush is too hardheaded and well, just plain too retarded to go along with that. - Plus Pelosi could decide she'd rather keep her job and push to cut a deal for an acceptable Veep.

Just my VERY humble opinion.

Whether it ends up Pelosi or someone else, I think impeachment and conviction can be gotten. The outside chance but it's possible.

[pnwmom]

44. You think we have 67 votes NOW? Without any investigations?

Who are all those Republican Senators you're counting on?

[Rosemary2205]

51. WHAT???

This is what I said, and you responded to. I'm confused on how this can be interpreted as claiming we have the votes RIGHT NOW. But whatever.



"I think 67 Senators CAN be got. Yes, it will take making deals and twisting arms in addition to massive public outcry. IMHO if the dems can get the media to start talking about crime and fraud in the White House on a daily basis then within 6 months to a year we could have President Pelosi.

It will not be easy, and there is a lot of wishful thinking involved because the media is so far up Bush's petard at the moment, but it's POSSIBLE. "

[pnwmom]

54. You're right, I did forget about your first post.

Part of the reason, though, is that you were saying that you didn't think there would be time for a new VP to be confirmed. If you think it could take 6 months to a year to drum up enough of a public outcry, that would give Bush plenty of time to get a new VP confirmed. All he has to do is pick someone like McCain. It would be extremely unlikely that the Senate would not confirm one of its own, who had a clean record.

[treestar]

61. Now that's something worth thinking about

Which I hadn't thought of, thank you. The idea of that President being at an advantage in 2008 is in fact alarming. He would be Ford-like, too, which gives me tinfoil hat syndrome on the late lionization of Ford, lol.

Maybe Cheney and * are so delusional that they couldn't have Cheney resign, but that would be another gamble.

[GOTV]

52. Name them. n/t

[Ravenseye]

55. Possible. Not Probable.

Heck, it's POSSIBLE that in 6 months Barak Obama could be President. Impeach Cheney and Bush without a chance for nominated replacements, President Pelosi, nominates Obama for VP, Pelosi steps down. President Obama.

Possible. Not fucking probable.

If you think it's PROBABLE that there is even really a chance of impeaching and having President Pelosi in 6 months to a year, you need to turn down the sunbeams. Ain't gonna happen.

[Rosemary2205]

58. Yes, I know it involves some wishful thinking.

Sue me. I'm an optimist! :)

[LynneSin]

66. Not getting 67 senators if we put impeachment 'on the table' now

By the time the media and the right-wing screeds get done racking the democrats through the coals as obstructionists, revengeminded, and every other horrid thing imaginable - we'll probably not even get 17 democrats to support impeachment.

Investigation - when the evidence is overwhelmingly, congress will have no choice to impeach

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. You only need a majority to impeach

Convict on a bill of impeachment... that is a different issue. But I think impeachment and a very public trial, regardless of the likelihood of conviction, would go very, very far in healing this country. Let the Junta stand accused in open court, before the nation and the world. There is no need to wait until 2009 to do this.

[pnwmom]

34. A very public trial followed by a very public "not guilty" verdict

in the Senate won't achieve anything beyond what we'd achieve by having very public Senate and House committee investigations.

Bush is the only one who would benefit from the scenario, because he could claim to be vindicated.

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. Like Clinton was vindicated?

While Clinton was not convicted of his impeachment, a majority of senators did vote to convict. Fifty-two, if memory serves. Democrats could easily pull that off, and I expect that several Republicans would add their support as well. Even if not enough to convict, a majority plus would definitely undercut the Junta's ability to further harm this country.

[pnwmom]

39. Exactly like Clinton was vindicated. Clinton's popularity was untouched

by his impeachment. And yes, like many, I applauded his "not guilty" verdict.

The Republicans who hated him still hate him. But Clinton retained high approval ratings throughout the proceedings and he is still popular among Democrats today.

[treestar]

47. It was over a personal matter, more or less, though

And * is not popular. So the Repubs in the Senate might not find it so easy to vote against it.

The main problem is Cheney, though. There is almost no point in doing it unless Cheney goes too. Though they are probably both responsible for the WMD lies and could possibly be tried together. They are co-conspirators.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. We have enough votes to impeach, aka Indict

but we do not have enough votes IN THE SENATE to convict, aka 2\3 majority.

That is the simple math

Now here is the other simple math... once the investigatiions occur, if there is nenoug pressure from the constituents, even the Pugs will vote to indict in the senate

This is the reason Nixon stepped down... the votes suddenly appeared after the Saturday Night Massscre

[JackBeck]

3. Can we please wait until the investigations begin before starting this again?

Bush got rid of Harriet to prepare for what's about to come his way.

[Dhalgren]

4. Who do you think he will get for his new lawyer? Should be interesting...

[JackBeck]

5. Maybe OJ's team? n/t

[Dhalgren]

14. That sounds about right. I know that it won't be anyone overtly

connected to Poppy. I think all of the talk about Poppy having bailed him out his whole life is beginning to get to the Little Dictator. I think that if the humiliation factor continues to build, that Bush will have a psychotic episode, hopefully in public. That would obviate the need to impeach...

[Dulcinea]

67. Except Johnnie Cochran is dead. eom

[AndyA]

7. I agree. Impeachment must be a process, and it begins with the normal

checks and balances Congress is supposed to perform. Once irregularities are revealed, hearings and investigations can happen. Once that process begins, the road to impeachment will be wide open.

I believe it will happen, I don't think there's any way it couldn't unless some sneaky under the table deal has been made with the Democrats, and I just don't see that as a real possibility, despite Pelosi and Conyers saying impeachment is off the table.

What Pelosi and Conyers should have said is "impeachment is off the table for now. However, we will be performing checks and balances, and if there are any irregularities, who knows where that could lead."

Impeachment is in Bush's future. You can bet on it.

[leftofthedial]

8. wouldn't be prudent

couldn't "win"

need to get on with the important business of the country (like rolling over and taking king george's "surge" up the a$$)





real reasons?

once in congress, regardless of party affiliation, they're all in the same club and their loyalty is more to one another than to the country

only repukes are allowed to be "mean"

impeachment might distract democratic congresspeople from their 2008 presidential and vice presidential campaigns

their corporate campaign donors have other priorities

[Clinton Crusader]

10. oy. n/t

[Jim Warren]

15. slight correction

"their loyalty is more to one another than to the country."

Their loyalty is to the MONEY that put them there.

[madokie]

9. for starters shouldn't they take the time to decide what investigation that are the

most important first. Let the investigations tell the American people it is time to Impeach not a Democratic CongressCritter for crying out loud. As soon as its all layed out on the tables for all to see there will be a groundswell like America has never seen to get these crooks out to there like yesterday right now, right fucking now. But, America, is a government of laws not men, so we must let due process have its way. Come back in a couple months and ask the question about Impeachment and then we'll see if anything is going on.
;-)

[Clinton Crusader]

13. Given a choice, Id rather see handcuffs

than tossed out of office....

[madokie]

35. I want to see both and the only way to do that is not let them off on a technicality

slip up on 'em slow and easy out in the open and when you get them you got 'em, shit and all

[cigsandcoffee]

11. Because impeachment hurt the Republicans.

...and not Clinton. Democrats must have noticed this.

[Jim Warren]

16. ya think?

I think it hurt Gore.

[cigsandcoffee]

18. I think Gore hurt himself.

He distanced himself from Clinton in the campaign - shunned him, even.

Anyway, Gore won, didn't he?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Duh: GORE WON THE ELECTION.

He didn't hurt himself, he got robbed.

[cigsandcoffee]

26. You should have read my whole post.

I mentioned that.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. So if he won the election he did not hurt himself.

He got a larger share of the votes than Clinton ever did. He got more votes than Kerry. He won the election. He certainly got hurt, as all of our recent candidates have, by the rightwing echo chamber known as the mainstream media, but he won despite that. We keep buying into the 'bad campaign' blame the victim bullshit.

[cigsandcoffee]

73. It's my opinion that not shunning Clinton....

....would have made it too big a margin for shenanigans. That was Gore hurting himself, IMO.

[Jim Warren]

25. Well it hurt Gore

because he was advised to run from Clinton.....which I always thought was a stupid call, why would you run from peace and prosperity?

And yes he won but he also let it get close enough to steal when it should have been a slam-dunk.

[cigsandcoffee]

28. Fine.

None of that means the impeachment of Clinton helped Republicans. It pissed off American voters, and there's a fair chance drumming up the whole process again for Bush would do the same.

Don't think for a minute Democrats in power haven't considered this. If impeachment was popular across the board, they'd be all over it.

[gilpo]

85. Not this time. The evidence will be overwhelming....

When Clinton was impeached, it was for the most hairsplitting reason in most Americans' opinions. When the clowns are impeached there will be mountains of damning evidence. Why else would they be lawyering up now? They are scared.

[Orsino]

19. Because most of the reps who would impeach...

...are complicit in many of his crimes.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Well, it seems there a few things needed...

for an impeachment to happen.

There has to be some sense that the public is looking for it, as in Nixon's case, or at least enough outrage in large enough quarters as in Johnson's and Clinton's cases. Aside from a bunch of us on the left, there isn't much interest in such doings around the rest of the country.

There must be some smoking gun and symbol-- like the Nixon tapes or the blue dress. If it turns out that Shrub did really lie or make some dirty deal so be it, but now there's no "proof" that the public will accept. Being an incompetant asshole and screwing up everything he touches is not an impeachable offense. If it were, we'd have thrown out a lot more Presidents.

We need a VP who will step in and make things better. Impeaching Shrub now will just put Cheney in office-- frying pan... fire... Impeaching both is out of the question and even if tried for good reason will only be seen as a conspiracy to put Pelosi in the White House. Pelosi in the White House sounds OK to me, but it ain't gonna happen. BTW, Pelosi in the White House and maybe running for election in '08 doesn't sound at all good to the current crop of Presidential contenders, who are now mostly sitting where? Pelosi could, if this were to happen, serve two complete terms after taking over this year, knocking everyone else out of the running for a loooong time. Yeah, Hillary wants that.

After so many years out of power, Democrats really should be seen as adults coming back to put things in order, not putting payback for Clinton and the dark years of Congress as a priority. This seems to be the major point the Democrats are making now.

And, it will be tough enough to get an impeachment bill through the House with a lot of Democrats leery of the bad PR, but impossible to get a conviction in the Senate with such a slim, currently nonexistent, majority. Nixon resigned because he knew Senate Republicans had turned against him.

Only once in our history did a sitting President get tossed out, and this little factoid is not lost on the players in DC.

[crispini]

27. Very nice, sensible analysis of the current situation.

Wish I could K&R an individual reply! This is absolutely spot-on.

[treestar]

62. Are you talking about Nixon in your last sentence?

Johnson was acquitted.

I wonder if it is possible that Chimpy might resign if the evidence and the public outcry were enough.

Cheney is rather Agnew-like. We could end up with a Ford-like President. And Ford did get beat by a Democrat when he ran again. Maybe history really does repeat itself.

[TreasonousBastard]

88. Yeah, Nixon, but I doubt Shrub would quit...

quite frankly, even if things got that far I think Shrub is too stupid to see the handwriting on the wall.

[librechik]

24. Go to your state legislature and demand they do it. Citizens can make it happen

please look into it--several legislatures are already working up articles. They can demand that the Congress open an investigation. Give them your support.

[Snot Hannity]

30. Impeachment or not,

if the Dems don't give hell to the current admin in the next year and a half, they won't get my vote in 2008. I will go with the third party candidate.

[ellisonz]

90. Welcome to DU!

I'm pretty sure even the DLCers got the message in the last election. They are getting hell already...and it's already the 2nd day in Congress. The 100 hours have not even yet begun and the rats are jumping off the ship...

:hi:

[omega minimo]

32. someone explain to me why being informed is a bad thing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3037102

"Maybe you can help me understand how people who read these FACTS about the realities of the American governmental system can fall back on OPINION and memes that are based on sand and spin........... I have not seen any anti-impeachment threads that provided links or informed arguments beyond personal opinion about (questionable) strategy and (impossible to predict) predictions."

[GOTV]

72. That's because none of the "anti-impeachment" crowd...

... is claiming that W doesn't deserve impeachment.

He does and we all believe it.

Strategy is the only consideration now that it up for debate. Whether W abused his office is not in question here at DU.

[omega minimo]

74. That's a bunch of bullshit

[GOTV]

89. Then it should be easy to offer a counter-example. But you didn't do it. Why?

Too much work to actually have a discussion?

[omega minimo]

91. Too much work to actually read the link?

[Mikey929]

41. Under Oath

As a lawyer, the big distinction I see is that Clinton lied under oath in a court proceeding. He wasn't impeached for lying in the performance of his job (all politicians lie). Clinton committed perjury in an attempt to defend a lawsuit. That's the difference between Clinton and Bush.

[mondo joe]

43. Because impeachment is a political act and the numbers don't reflect

the political balance required.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Impeachment is a political act. Politicians are wary of taking risks.

They don't "lead" they follow the polls and the money. With some (very few) exceptions.

[LynneSin]

68. Oh they'll take risks...

when we finish with the evidence and have the hardcore proof to present to the world. I say about 6-9 months and we might see an impeachment

[specimenfred1984]

59. He's being framed instead, evidence and investigations...

and being used against him to better show the world what a criminal he is, although the world already knows it. Chimp is being displayed as a poster boy for corruption which is a lot more effectively done if he's not behind the scenes.

There are 100s of subpoenas coming his way, it's why Harriet Myers quit. For the next 2 years, anytime the war criminal needs to be used to make a point, he will be thoroughly used and dragged through the press as an example of what a real liar is.

When the public finally gets as sick of the sociopathic traitor as we are already, they'll demand impeachment and a quick jail sentence and will be so sick of repukes that they won't see any power for at least another 30 years.

[Cleita]

63. Big Dog lied under oath. So far no one has gotten these clowns

under oath even when they had to testify to the 9/11 commission. Once we get them under oath and they lie, then gotcha! The investigation under Starr set the precendent.

However, I believe that Bush/Cheney will be forced to leave office one way or the other before their term is up. It's in the stars.

[LynneSin]

65. OH MY FRICKING LORDY NOT ANOTHER ONE - Let me play poker with you PLEASE!!!

Must I explain this AGAIN for the 10 millionth time - no impeachment until we do the investigation. And if we want the investigation to be successful AND get the votes we need for the impeachment to actually REMOVE them.

Now, if your strategy is to focus solely on the investigation and trust me at least a dozen senators have hearings setup in committee (include my guy Joe Biden), keep impeachment 'off the table' because as soon as we put it 'on the table' the media will be doing 24x7 that democrats impeaching Bush is nothing more then revenge for 1998.

Seriously, let's play poker for money. I'm guessing you're the type that will show me all your cards first before we make best AND explain to me what your strategy is and each card you get redealt to you.

If not cards then perhaps chess, football, monopoly, risk - whatever. I prefer keeping my strategies to myself and build my hand until it's unrefutably the best hand possible. That's what I want with impeachment - overwhelming proof that even the media and republicans can't deny (at least 17 moderate leaning republicans).

[GOTV]

71. The encouraging thing is....

Each time this topic comes up (several times a day) there are more and more people voicing the "investigations first" line. So I think we as a community are finally getting it.

[LynneSin]

75. I know but that's still why I kinda make a big stink

so those who don't have a clue can catch on!

[pnwmom]

78. You are so right, LynneSin.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi knows how to play some poker, too. Something tells me she'd be good.

[LSK]

79. thank you

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. He won't be impeached because there aren't enough votes to convict and remove him

67 votes are needed to convict and remove. There are 51 Senators in the Democratic Caucus. That means that ever single Democrat (including Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Mary Landreau) will have to vote to convict, plus 16 Republicans. Factoring in Tim Johnson's likely long absence, it may take 17 Republicans. Does anyone really believe that there are 17 Republicans in the Senate who will vote to impeach?

[Disturbed]

86. Not enough votes for finding of Guilty?

I would not count on that conclusion.

Go read this:


The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=