Two questions for those who want impeachment.

[ddbaj]

1) Are you confident that all 51 senators in the current majority (This includes the newly elected Lieberman and Ben Nelson) will support removal if the house impeaches?

2) Which 16 GOP Senators do you think are the most likely to support the removal?

Quick note, simply saying "Once we begin they'll come around" is not good enough, a lot of these guys are in safe seats or are hardcore GOP or don't plan on running again. I also honestly don't see all 51 of the majority senators voting to remove, in which case you'd need closer to 20 GOPers. In any case, those are my questions.

[Phredicles]

1. Better to impeach & not convict than never

to have impeached at all, if it comes to that.

[wryter2000]

9. I sympathize with your desire for justice

But the fact is, if we impeach and don't convict, it'll convince the rest of the country that Bush was found not guilty.

[mvd]

Well, Bush has low popularity

People liked Clinton, so his popularity remained high. Bush would also have different kinds of charges - more serious ones.

[wryter2000]

27. IMHO

More charges will be revealed by having lots of separate hearings into various issues than in having impeachment hearings. Remember Bush/Cheney aren't the only ones who need to be brought down.

[mvd]

32. You're right

Thanks for bringing up that point.

[mmonk]

59. Impeachment is off the table means THERE WILL BE NO CHARGES.

You're gonna get another Iran contra redo, nothing more and with same effectiveness (nada).

[rman]

64. Thanks to Iran/Contra hearings at least some of the RW's dirty business

are on the record. Stuff got documented, many people "know" even if there were few convictions. In other words: i strongly disagree that it amounted to nada.

[mmonk]

66. Feel free to.

Funny how some of those Iran Contra types are sprinkled in this law breaking government. Inaction has consequences, the most prominent being repetition.

[rman]

68. At least we know they're crooks - thanks to those hearings

Do you think it would have been better if there had been no hearings (complete inaction) on Iran/Contra?

[mmonk]

70. Seems to me to be the same except

that there were hearings. Most people in the US don't hold the Reagan administration responsible or to them it is a trivial thing and to them appears not to have been serious since nothing was done as a result. What has happened the last six years here is in no way trivial and is way of life and way of governing changing. We need to adhere to our constitution. If we don't use it we lose it. Take a look at the person pictured in my posts. Should the crimes she knows about be investigated with full weight of the constitution? Should she remain being gagged? Should the citizens have a right to know what she does concerning the people they elected to office? Should they be above the law?

[wryter2000]

72. Examples of charges without impeachments

Halliburton could be charged with fraud as a result of hearings on war profiteering. That might even result in criminal charges against Cheney. Potential criminal charges could come out against Congressional repugs because of their involvement with Abramoff. I'm sure I could think of more, but it's early.

"Off the table" doesn't mean never happen. First, it was a way of counteracting "the dems only want to impeach the President" talking point, and it did very well. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "Now that I know what I know, impeachment is back on the table."

IMHO, focussing exclusively on Bush/Cheney is too narrow. We have to clean out the whole pile of trash or it'll just start to rot again.

[mmonk]

73. Impeachment is reserved for crimes against the constitution,

not criminal and civil statutes. Nobody said just focus on bush or Cheney. I've seen no evidence and heard nothing to the effect they plan to go against their declaration that impeachment is off the table. If you have, you need to link it or share it.

[wryter2000]

74. First of all

I'm only aware of Nancy Pelosi saying it. Second, it would be stupid to say "impeachment is off the table unless it's on it."

What I'm saying is going for impeachment takes the focus off so many other things that need to be investigated. People love to quote Barbara Jordan, Elizabeth Holtzman, et al. What they don't mention was impeachment discussion came AFTER extensive hearings that didn't start out with an attempt to impeach.

When the country as a whole wants them out, that's the time to do it. And before you quote that poll to me, the poll showed that people wanted impeachment if Bush/Cheney lied to us to get us into the war. You and I know they did, but it hasn't been proved to the public as a whole yet.

Again, getting rid of Bush and Cheney isn't enough.

[mmonk]

81. Well it would end violations of US laws, the War Crimes Act,

any more illegal wars and occupations, signing statements meant to circumvent US laws, illegal detentions and torture, war escalation, rightwing nominees to the high court, illegally wiretapping US citizens,weapons proliferation,.....I could go on but I'm not going to change your mind. Do whatever your political leaders tell you. I choose to push for reinstatement of constitutional law and the Bill of Rights. I choose to try and tell them what to do on my behalf.

[RaleighNCDUer]

You mean, the way the whole contry is convince that OJ is innocent? nt

[ClassWarrior]

48. You're NEVER going to convince those people anyway...

...even he were to be found guilty unanimously. So why pander to them? Let's just do the right thing and make sure Lady Justice is served. I'm sure she won't let us down.

NGU.

[wryter2000]

75. If they aren't removed, justice isn't served

Lady Justice has let us down very badly since 2001. I'd rather rely on real votes that a mythical lady.

[GeorgeGist]

54. Like OJ?

:rofl:

[wryter2000]

76. More like Clinton n/t

n/t

[ddbaj]

10. Impeachment would be nice, indeed.

I just can't support it without removal, sorry.

[ClassWarrior]

16. Amen.

NGU.

[onenote]

71. because allowing chimpy to say he was acquitted is good thing?

[LA lady]

2. Don't count on Landrieu

I don't think there's a chance in Hell that Landrieu would vote to convict if he was impeached.

[ddbaj]

4. Forgot about her.

She's iffy at best.

[WilliamPitt]

3. edit

for dumb reading on my part.

[ddbaj]

5. No problem.

:)

[WilliamPitt]

7. No, that was my bad

Note my edit. Sorry.

[LA lady]

6. The OP is talking about the Democrats

He also mentions needing 16 republicans

[WilliamPitt]

8. Yup

I'm dumb.

[wryter2000]

11. I think I made the same mistake

I was about to point out the OP's "error," too. :)

[Xipe Totec]

12. Enough crap will come out during impeachment investigations

to convict him of criminal wrongdoing once he leaves office.

Even if he is never convicted. Even if the impeachment vote fails.

So, standing up for the Chimp will be an empty gesture for the GOP that will only pull the party down the drain along with the chimp.

[ddbaj]

14. If there's no shot at removal, then why impeachment?

Dems can simply investigate like congress should constantly be doing. I think if we bring out impeachment and it fizzles it looks bad for us as Bush would be "Not guilty".

Impeach to remove, that's my view.

[Xipe Totec]

19. To bring the rest of the GOP down

or do you think Dubya is the only problem here?

[mvd]

22. Plus, impeachment does have a shame attached to it

While Clinton remained popular, I'm convinced the impeachment made the 2000 election close enough to steal.

[Xipe Totec]

47. And an apropos quote regarding our chances:

Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.

- Thomas Edison

[BlueStater]

15. Let the assholes not impeach him

And may history record that they protected a criminal from facing justice.

[The Wielding Truth]

50. He will be exposed, and in like the last election majority, opinion will

fall to the overwhelming evidence of corruption and mismanagement. Our governmental majority must be used to shine the light so brightly that even the * lovers will be unable to ignore his crimes.

[On Par]

13. Trent Lott Will Vote FOR Impeachment....

...even though as a Congressman he voted not to Impeach Nixon. He was one of three. However, time has changed and Lott is in the don't get mad, get even phase of his career.

Also, look for Lugar, Snow, and Hagel to vote for impeachment.

[ddbaj]

18. Snow and Hagel I can see for sure.

Lott... maybe he wants revenge that bad, you may be right. Lugar not sure.

Still, at best we need 16, and if as I and others predict people like Lieberman, Nelson and other dems vote No, we'll need around 20 Republicans.

I'd toss in Collins and Smith as possible yes votes also.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. A question back at you -

Do you think that it should not be attempted, just because the numbers aren't with us?

My own answer: Impeachment is the right, and constitutional thing to do - to avoid it because it is foredoomed to fail is sheer cowardice.

[ddbaj]

23. I think...

That until we are SURE we have at least 67 senators with us, impeachment should not be used. If we can work hard and get there, then I will support impeachment loudly. However, at the moment I believe we're short of 67 by quite a bit. If I am wrong then tell me where we get the votes.

I say lets work to GET to 67, but until then, I am indeed against impeachment. I am also against going at it and hoping they come around once it begins.

[Phredicles]

31. I just think this mentality of "let's do nothing unless we're sure we can

win" is what's been wrong with the Democratic party for, well, pretty much my entire lifetime, and I am no longer a young person. Just one fucking time I would like to see this party FIGHT the injustice that surrounds us all rather than giving up and bending over time and again.

[ddbaj]

36. Who says we don't fight?

Lets investigate HARD! But pulling out the ultimate weapon before we're sure it works is not the right thing to do. I do not want to give him a not guilty verdict, sorry.

[mmonk]

67. You'd rather him not even be charged.

The difference between a party that violates the constitution and a party that won't defend the constitution is only in matter of degree.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Agree!

As a kid, I was always the scrawny little guy who got picked on. I'd get beat up, cry, and run away. Then, as I got older, I learned to run away before getting beat up - and still got picked on. One day I snapped and went batshit crazy on the bully, and I scared him. Me. I scared him. Sure, he came back and beat me up later, but I didn't run away. I've never run away since. And eventually, they stopped picking on me.

You fight because you have to fight. Not fighting is surrender. Even if you KNOW you will lose, you have to make them know they were in a fight, otherwise they'll keep at it. Ford pardoned Nixon, so today we have *. They keep coming back, if you don't fight.

[elocs]

52. I'm with you ddbaj, but you won't find much support for your argument here.

You constantly hear the cries of impeach, impeach, impeach like it is the be-all and end-all of everything. It is rare to ever read of somebody mentioning conviction or how it might happen. You will never get an answer as to where the 67 votes to convict in the Senate will come from, just blind faith that it will happen. Everyday somewhere in this country there is a DA who refuses to indict somebody they know is guilty when they know there is no possibility of conviction. They know that once you try them and they are found not guilty, then it is all over.

Clinton was impeached as a result of an ongoing investigation and even after the articles of impeachment were passed it took a year for the vote by the Senate. There are currently no ongoing investigations of Bush. "Knowing" Bush is guilty is not the same as "proving" he is. That will take investigations and that will take time. Think there is a possibility that Bush and his lawyers might stretch everything out for 2 years? When Pelosi says impeachment is off the table, what part of that statement is difficult to understand? Pelosi is applauded for everything else, so do people just think she is a moron when it comes to impeachment or might she just know what she is doing? If impeachment is a logical and doable possibility and worth distracting from all of the good that the Democrats can do, I am sure Pelosi would be the first on board.

[On Par]

25. Bush Is Working Under A False Assumption....

...of the War Powers Act, and Congress's vote. However, those provisions have run their course. Sadaam is dead, there were no WMD's, and there is no imminent threat.

To continue to ignore Congress and the Constitution requires impeachment.

[ddbaj]

26. Agreed.

Sadly, an impeachment that yields no removal would do nothing to solve the problem.

If you support impeachment as merely a tool to expose, then I say why not use regular investigations and keep impeachment for use later if removal DOES become an option?

[mmonk]

61. Doing nothing is a gaurantee that nothing will be solved

and the worse precedents in history unaddressed. Who thinks Reagan was guilty of wrongdoing for Iran Contra because we decided to hold hearings or investigations with no impeachment proceedings. How many average Joe's out there even know what is was about? This is apparently what some wish for the constitutional crimes of this administration. And for what, pray tell?

[On Par]

20. Are You Saying Only 30 Dems Will Vote for Impeahment???

You need to recall the vote on Clinton. At this point, maybe 10 Dems are on the fence, and maybe only 3-5 are a "no" at this point.

[ddbaj]

24. No, we need 67 total votes.

IF we had 100% of the majority (Dems plus independents) we'd need 16 republicans. That's the best case scenario.

[On Par]

28. 67 Would Be A Grand Bipartisan Effort....

....but it's not necessary. And, if you lived through Watergate, you would understand, it will be members of the Republican party that will go to the White House, just as Barry Goldwater did, and tell Bush it's over, and he'll resign rather than be impeached.

How did Nixon put it.... "Resigning due to my eroding political base."

Cheney, OTOH, will take them to wall. They'll have to drag him out, if they can find him in his undisclosed location.

[BuyingThyme]

21. I think there should be a clean vote on each and every crime.

And a trial for each offense.

No more of this multiple-article crap.

[hughee99]

44. I believe in an impeachment trial...

they actually vote on each article individually, if any of the articles receive 67 votes, even if it's only 1 of 100, then the person is out of office. IIRC from the Alcee Hastings impeachment, there was 17 counts, they voted to convict on some, acquit on others, and I'm not sure why but didn't even vote on a few of them.

[Dr Fate]

29. It will be their responsibility to explain their "no" votes in the face of the evidence.

If cowardly Democrats or dishonest Republicans want to vote "no" to impeachment once the public finds out all the lies and crimes, it is their ass, not mine.

[porphyrian]

30. I'm confident we'll have the votes on all sides by the time we get there.

But that's a number of investigation-results away. When the truth is out, all of the Congress-critters will be hard pressed NOT to impeach.

[ddbaj]

33. Can you be more specific?

Why would someone like Joe Lieberman, who win despite losing the primary and who doesn't face election until 2012 (If he even stays) be persuaded by that? It's not like he can be removed for his no vote. This goes for many other senators who have nothing to fear for being against removal. You need to provide specific examples of senators (on both sides) who could turn.

[porphyrian]

38. Not really, I'm not a psychic and I don't know any Congressmen personally.

However, as I said, when the truth is revealed of this administrations criminal activities and multiple impeachable offenses, people in Congress will be hard pressed to deny the facts in their faces and the public outcry for impeachment, which I believe is coming. The specifics you want would be mere speculation on my part. Why are you so confident this won't or cannot happen?

[elocs]

56. Impeachment and conviction will work because those who clamor for it

really, really, really want it to work. Don't get lost in the details like which senators might vote to convict or not. It will all magically come together and our Republic will be saved and survive.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elocs]

83. Time to put the new ignore function to work. n/t

[porphyrian]

85. You have fun with that. - n/t

[On Par]

34. If There Are The Votes To Impeach, It Won't Be Necessary To Vote

As with Watergate, it was the Republicans who went to the White House and told Nixon he was going to be impeached. They deep-sixed him rather than have to vote against him. In response, Nixon resigned.

Nixon's words were, I'm resigning due to my eroding political base.

[porphyrian]

39. You're probably right about that, and I'm alright with it. - n/t

[Independent_Liberal]

53. That's exactly what I said.

Read my post below (#35).

[wryter2000]

77. Exactly

Once we've proved the case so that even Repubs have to sign on (if only to save their own political hides), that's the time to impeach.

[porphyrian]

79. However, there's nothing wrong with us calling for impeachment now.

The people who will actually be doing the impeachment know, though many people resisting the idea apparently do not, that the process is glacially slow and that we have six years of lies and a republican-bought corporate media to contradict before most people understand just how deserving of impeachment this entire administration is. Citizens calling for impeachment now is a good thing as it helps move this process along, getting the truth out despite the corporate media and the lies.

[Independent_Liberal]

35. It's most likely this is how it would play out...

1.) Sixty current and former GOP lawmakers, a few current and former White House aides, some defense contractors and lobbyists and other GOP operatives are indicted in the Abramoff and Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate scandals. This includes Hastert, Blunt, Cantor, Sweeney, Doolittle, Burns, Wilkes, Mehlman, Rove, Norquist, Norton, etc. More indictments are handed down in Plamegate and AIPAC/Franklingate including Hadley, Gonzales, Feith, Perle, etc.

2.) Libby is convicted in his trial and he implicates Cheney. A bunch of info comes to light about Plame, Halliburton, AIPAC, Leandro Aragoncillo, WHIG, DynCorp, the Energy Task Force and secret energy meetings, etc. Cheney is indicted by Fitzgerald and resigns.

3.) Congress forces Bush to appoint McCain as VP.

4.) Oversight, investigations and hearings dig up lots of stuff. Sibel Edmonds becomes the sole whistleblower who helps blow the conspiracies wide open.

5.) Impeachment hearings begin.

6.) A small delegation of Republican Senators including Lugar, Hagel, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Graham, Warner, Lott, etc. go up to the White House and urge Bush to resign.

7.) Bush resigns to avoid impeachment and get a pardon.

8.) McCain is sworn in as President. He appoints George Pataki as his VP. McCain-Pataki are the caretakers until January 2009.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Even if it fails, it's still the right thing to do.

I agree that most, if not all, Republicans will vote against. And, that some Democrats will be too cowardly to vote for removal.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't make the attempt.

[cassiepriam]

40. It is the right thing to do no matter who votes what way.

Sometimes you take the high road, do the right thing
and let the chips fall where they may.

[TahitiNut]

42. Agreed!

100%

[cassiepriam]

49. We are so caught up in the repug craziness that we have forgotten

that is it really simple.

Tell the truth, do the right thing.

And who cares what the sociopaths do or say.

[TahitiNut]

41. Absolutely nothing deserves to part of the historical record more than such a vote.

The supposed failure of the Senate to vote for removal is no excuse for a failure of the House to compose the plentiful Articles of Impeachment, if only to put the record of this criminal administration in history. (It wasn't a blow job. Any comparisons to that appalling display of right-wing fascist extremism are illicit at the very outset.)

The bottom line is: it doesn't matter as much as voting the Articles of Impeachment themselves.

I want absolutely EVERY Representative and Senator on the fucking record! There has never been a more criminal and corrupt Presidency in this nation's history. Say so!!

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Once we begin they'll come around

I'm sorry if you don't think that's good enough. I think it's a fact.

It will not take too much digging by investigators to uncover serious wrongdoing by the Bush regime, with not just the complicity but on direct orders from Bush and Cheney. We are talking about everything from simple cronyism to the manipulation of prewar intelligence in order to secure fraudulantly a Congressional vote for his dirty little colonial war. That isn't just wrongdoing. That is a war crime.

Bush and Cheney may continue to have the support of a diehard 25 or 30%, but once the facts into the Congressional Record, the rest will be screaming for their heads. It GOP members of the House know what's good for them, they will vot to impeach; if GOP senators know what's good for them, they will vote to convict.

[Crabby Appleton]

46. I don't think 67 votes in senate is possible

[elocs]

58. Congratulations! Another person who is not numerically challenged. n/t

[mmonk]

63. So the crystal ball says that even if the truth is revealed

to the American people, there won't be any pressure for the senators to ask for removal. Interesting that absolute is. Whether they seek removal or worship him and kiss his feet, he will still be impeached and duly noted in history as such and his constitutional crimes revealed. That's alot better than what we've got now.

[elocs]

82. So reveal the truth, then impeach. Not the other way around.

That's what investigations are all about. A DA does not indict and then start investigations. Build the groundwork and foundation with the investigations which will be starting. Pelosi is not a moron when she says impeachment is off the table. She knows what she is doing more than the many political armchair quarterbacks. Pelosi is at where the rubber meets the road. She does not have the luxury of sitting back at home and declaring, "Oh well, I guess I was wrong".

[FogerRox]

51. Hmmm... well....

Only 12 Senators support the "Surge". Which might suggest that there exists today. latent support.

.
.
.
.
.
.

Heres a top down chart:


Bush & Cheney go to jail.



Bush & Cheney convicted of crimes.

Bush & Cheney undergo a jury trial.

Bush & Cheney removed from office. (Conviction in Senate)

Bush & Cheney impeached. Indicted in House.

Bush & Cheney get investigated. Foundation is built here.


I say start building the foundation .... right now.
If we dont build the foundation we will never get to put the roof shingles on. Well prosecuted criminal cases start with a good foundation. The House DEMs job is to build that foundation, cinder block by cinder block, row by row. If they dont, we slam them good.

I think in the long run many Repubs may see their voters getting pissed off at Bush & Cheney, more & more voters demanding the removal from office means more repub senators will consider voting to remove from office..... if we lay a good foundation, the people may demand it.

SO lets get to mixing some cement.

[LanternWaste]

55. Man, I love the long odds-- the payoff's that much sweeter!

Answer number one: Nope. Not at all.

Answer number two: I don't think any GOP Senators would support the measure.

I hope you're not implying that our sense of justice should be predicated on the odds...

[mmonk]

57. My answers.

1. Maybe with pressure but I'm not confident in that.
2. Who knows what would happen when the pressure would mount as the truth would be exposed to many Americans for the first time.

Right now, the majority of Americans support impeachment if it shows that he was dishonest. This is with millions of Americans out there with very little clue as to the scope of what this administration has done.

You're either for the constitution or against it. I'm for it no matter what contrived excuse is presented as reasons not to do their duty.

Remember, investigated and charged is impeached no matter what the senate does.

Read my sig line.

[magellan]

60. You don't impeach because you're sure you've got the votes to do it

You impeach because justice demands the process be undertaken.

[Nickster]

65. A-Frickin-Men! Thank you! Since when do we decide to avoid the Constitution because it would

not be politically expedient?

[rman]

62. Even if impeachment fails at least Dems will go down in history

as having acknowledged the danger that this presidency poses to US democracy.

[janx]

69. One question for those who don't want impeachment:

If we don't even try, what does that say to the rest of the world?

[Kazak]

80. 1) irrelevant, 2) irrelevant

Is it the right thing to do, or isn't it?

:shrug:

[ellisonz]

84. My greatest fear is Bush being found "not guilty."

There is a political process to this like it or not.

:shrug: