Were you opposed to Impeachment/Investigations and NOW are calling for prosecution of Bushco?

[omega minimo]

Sure seems like a lot of gung ho folks who didn't show up to support accountability at the time.

Impeachment was required of our Congressional representatives when crimes were being committed.

And no, it's not a consolation that Obama is president and Pelosi got her Congress.

Another dangerous precedent has been set for the nation.


:popcorn:

[lunatica]

1. But this one can be dealt with at election time

All that's needed is the light of day on the facts. And for us to disseminate the truth as we find it out.

[omega minimo]

2. What are you saying? "This one"?

[lunatica]

4. You said "another dangerous precedent set"

"This one" refers to the "dangerous precedent".

Sorry I didn't make it more clear.

[omega minimo]

9. I'm sorry, I still don't get the meaning of your first post.

What do you think the "dangerous precedent" is?

[lunatica]

25. I'm assuming you are comparing the past 8 years of denial

and letting crimes get a pass to the new dangerous precedent of Pelosi just getting more of what she wants and not really doing the people's business.

My response was that as the light of day (transparency) illuminates these dangerous precedents and we find out the truth, that we can choose who we vote for or vote out of office during the elections. And that as we find out the truth and the facts we have an obligation to tell others.

A lot like what happened in the last 8 years. They made a concerted and National effort on a massive scale to control the message and it didn't work. It didn't work because we, the people, made a massive and concerted effort to dig for facts. We can thank the internet for that, but we did the work.

Or, maybe I just misunderstood your post?

[omega minimo]

30. thank for the clarifications. point well taken

"It didn't work because we, the people, made a massive and concerted effort to dig for facts."

By not impeaching, we failed to do that.

[lunatica]

33. Yes we did. I wanted impeachment as soon as Bush was selected

Because our Constitution had been badly violated by the selection itself. It has never been the job of the Judicial Branch to choose our President under any circumstances. That was the first 'dangerous precedent' and in my mind the illegality was blaringly obvious.

But in reality impeachment may not be the worst that could happen. Being prosecuted as war criminals may still be in their future. If Bugliosi keeps his word they may be tried to murder.

[omega minimo]

39. excellent

thank you

[Buzz Clik]

3. That's me. I was against the push for impeachment and fully support prosecution.

We would never have touched Bush and Cheney with them in power.

Time to take off the gloves and start sizing them for orange jumpsuits.

[omega minimo]

6. ah, the self-fulfilling prophecy. Convinced you couldn't so ya din't, now ya think ya can....

Good luck :toast:



"We would never have touched Bush and Cheney with them in power. "

How do you know, since you didn't try, even under obligation to the Constitution?

:shrug:


It's the certainty that NOW it will happen, that its "Time to take off the gloves and start sizing them for orange jumpsuits" that's most baffling.

Selling out the Constitution and one's sworn duty to protect it is not "having the gloves on."

[Buzz Clik]

17. This isn't a guessing game, and it's been discussed in detail many times.

Sorry you missed it. But, it's water under the bridge, so I don't give a shit about your lack of approval.

[omega minimo]

23. the first thing I said to you was "Good Luck" and meant it. Don't be such a

[PeaceNikki]

5. The people who were against impeachment were not against it because they don't want justice.

They were against it for pragmatic reasons.

Impeachment would have resulted in ACQUITTAL.

[omega minimo]

7. You can't possibly know how it would have resulted. Too many don't understand the process.

"The people who were against impeachment were not against it because they don't want justice, They were against it for pragmatic reasons."


That "pragmatism" was a sell out. Largely by folks who don't understand what they were losing.

I hope we see some new comments here that make more sense than "I can read the future and when I want to fail, I won't try; when I know the outcome absolutely, then it's worth the effort."

That was the rationale for many DUers at the time and it didn't make sense then.

[PeaceNikki]

8. ha, ok

You keep fighting with others. I'll be over here in Realityville.

[omega minimo]

11. How's the KoolAid over there?

:spray:



edit for ::

oh I had "spray" and it didn't show the HUMOR i'm so sorry that smilie "proved" my ill intent :puke:

[PeaceNikki]

14. Haven't had any, but we have plenty of this

[omega minimo]

15. except for the ones who have gutted your Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.

[Buzz Clik]

24. Great pic!!!

Indeed, some of us chose to channel our energies into getting a Dem into the Oval Office rather than futilely attempting to extract a measure of revenge against the GOP.

I think it turned out pretty well.

[Shiver]

13. We didn't have the votes in the Senate for conviction

Two-thirds are needed to convict, and we sure as shit did not have two-thirds. The votes would have resulted in an acquittal, which would have meant Bush and Cheney et al would have gotten away with it, and could not be charged with those crimes ever again in the US court system.

This was decided inUnited States v. Ball, 1896:

"If the judgment is upon an acquittal, the defendant, indeed, will not seek to have it reversed, and the government cannot." U. S. v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310 (1892). Ball v. U.S., 163 U.S. 662, 671 (1896)

"A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense." Ball, supra, at 672.

[omega minimo]

20. Even if you're given a pass on predicting how many votes there would have been if they'd tried

you can't make the claim that "which would have meant Bush and Cheney et al would have gotten away with it."

No one knows what -- and who --the investigations and possible trial would have revealed.

We've heard all this before. I didn't intend to repeat the same arguments. Even at the time, I kept hoping someone at DU could go beyond soothsaying and prognostication (pretending to be pragmatism) to justify capitulation and abandonment of sworn duty and precious protections.

We've heard the vote count and "we know they would have been acquitted" stuff before.

[Shiver]

29. You don't seem to understand the acquittal process

If they had been acquitted, then they could not be charged with the same crimes again. Ever. Not in the United States federal court system. An acquittal cannot be appealed by the prosecution due to the prohibition against double jeopardy.

I don't know what a trial would have revealed. I don't know how it would have gone. But if you honestly believe that Senate Republicans would have gone along willingly with everything, and in the end broken with party loyalty and voted for conviction, then you have been looking at a completely different 110th Congress than I have.

[omega minimo]

31. you don't seem to understand the impeachment process

nor do a lot of those "pragmatic" soothsayers

[Shiver]

35. Impeachment does not equal removal from office.

Not unless there is a conviction in the Senate. We likely could have gotten impeachment, but not a conviction. Bush would have remained in office, and been acquitted of the crimes he was charged with.

You don't seem truly interested in discussion, so unless you provide something other than blatant dismissal or thinly-veiled insults, I'm done with this.

[omega minimo]

36. maybe it's the difference between understanding process as process and expecting predictable outcome

Again, you've made an assumption about what must happen and backed everything up from there.

Even with the different attitudes, the Constitution binds the sworn and the informed TO that process.

"You don't seem truly interested in discussion, so unless you provide something other than blatant dismissal or thinly-veiled insults, I'm done with this."


Thank you for your input. Notice that you are the one that first told me what I "don't seem to understand."

"Blatant dismissal"? I would LOVE to hear more informed comments that aren't either/or. That acknowledge the Constitutional requirements. The acknowledge the HUGE GAMBLE. That acknowledge the dangers. That aren't just "I know what would have happened and what will happen and that's how life is." It's not.

"Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans" -- John Lennon.




Don't let the venom of the others on "your side" drip into your posts. Unfortunately, those with the least to say are most insulting and thin-skinned.

[Shiver]

40. Now here we go, this was what I was looking for

I wasn't around for the big impeachment debates on here, so I haven't head all the arguments from both sides.

I admit, I make the assumption based upon what I thought would happen. I don't think the Republicans would have voted for conviction, because it would have tarnished the entire brand - their first president in eight years, after a very popular Democrat, being convicted of crimes that resulted in the deaths of thousand of Americans? Becoming the first US president to be removed from office and quite likely imprisoned? Most would do anything they could to keep their party from facing such disaster.

As I see it, impeachment without conviction is nothing more than a symbolic victory. I don't care much for symbolism. He would still have held executive power, still held veto power. The criminal actions of the Bush regime deserve more than just a slap on the wrist; they need to be found guilty and imprisoned at the bare minimum.

The Gamble, in my view, was too big. If the Dems had gone after it and failed to gain conviction, how would we have reacted? Would we have been proud of them for trying, or would we have been pissed that they had failed to do something that should have been a cakewalk? I don't know. Would continuous failed attempts have done more damage to the party than good? Quite possible.

To repeat, I believe The Gamble was too big - I feel the odds were greatly against conviction, and if no conviction was attained, then they would have been legally absolved, so to speak, of those crimes.

Apologies if I seemed snippy earlier. I had a cigarette after that last post and I feel a lot calmer now. Love that Lennon quote, by the way.

[omega minimo]

41. The other big gamble was with the eviscerated Constitution

Thank you for your excellent post.

"As I see it, impeachment without conviction is nothing more than a symbolic victory. I don't care much for symbolism. He would still have held executive power, still held veto power. The criminal actions of the Bush regime deserve more than just a slap on the wrist; they need to be found guilty and imprisoned at the bare minimum."

Interesting point. Many here argued against honoring, protecting, defending the Constitution "only on principle," as if principle is a bad thing. Maybe too abstract.

" i don't think the Republicans would have voted for conviction, because it would have tarnished the entire brand - their first president in eight years.... "

I think the use of the word "brand" and the reminder of the last eight years speaks to the point that we were all under the delusion that it was "okay" to let it go for as long as we did.

John Dean, I believe it was, said that No One Knew Or Could Have Predicted What Occurred and Who/What Emerged after the Watergate investigation started.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16142/



Thanks again.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Exactly. For reasons that have been detailed here at DU time and again.

I guess some folks can resist picking the scabs off old wounds.

[PeaceNikki]

22. Yup

This thread was clearly started in an effort to pick a fight (as is demonstrated by and the accusation of drinking "KoolAid").

<<sigh>>

[omega minimo]

26. Actually, I thought we might hear something more insightful and "reality based"

than all the same old repetitive delusions. And even with these vicious insults, make themselves look more uninformed.

My concern is the reality that all these smug, insulting souls have created (by bypassing process at a crucial moment in history) and I certainly wish them luck in now trying to find accountability after abdicating the actual power they had to do so.

:hi:

[PeaceNikki]

28. Hey, here's a thought

maybe if you didn't dismiss real arguments as "repetitive delusions", you might get a better discussion.

But it's clear that a reasonable discussion is not what you seek.

See ya!

[omega minimo]

32. provide better discussion, not the same old stuff, there wouldn't be "repetitive delusions"

Aside from the personal attacks, the folks with no backup to their claims can't back up their claims. They just repeat them.

The delusion is that you know what will happen before it does.

The delusion is that there would have been no repercussions of impeachment so no action should be taken without the be all and end all, supposedly predictable outcome of 60 votes.

The delusion is that you can abdicate Constitutional rights and then expect them to be there for you later -- esp. when the crimes being committed are attacks on the Constitution, which demands the remedy of impeachment of those sworn to protect and defend it.

The delusion is that you can repeat phrases endlessly and respond to queries with no info but with insults

The delusion may be that Bushco will ever be "prosecuted" or fully investigated now. I hope it's not.

[ThomWV]

10. I have been calling for Impeachment since January 20, 2001

[omega minimo]

12. Ah, well we remember THAT first week in office

:toast:

[ThomWV]

16. First act was Unconstitutional, creating the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives

[omega minimo]

34. Most striking to me was nixing the Kyoto Accord, telling the rest of the planet to F*** Off

:thumbsdown:

[man4allcats]

19. My sentiments EXACTLY!

The little bastard's only claim to the office rested on nothing less shameful and corrupt than election fraud. He should have been removed immediately. As for all his subsequent illegal foolishness, let me just say, in what is perhaps the greatest understatement of my life, that my already existing pro-impeachment sentiment only grew stronger.

[Fireweed247]

21. This is our chance to hold Bush accountable

I have been fighting for Impeachment and still want prosecutions.

WE cannot count on Congress but maybe we can count on this judge...

Obama Administration: Wiretapping Legal Challenge Must Die
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4903339

[omega minimo]

37. It's possible

:thumbsup:

[Stinky The Clown]

27. You're right. Lots of advising that we wait/keep our powder dry

The calls now remind of the same type of people who now say they never voted for Bush.

The 'wait till we have control' (i.e. win the election) have now done the same with respect to their desire to prosecute.

Some things are the right things to do.

Impeaching those motherfuckers WAY BACK WHEN was the right thing to do.

[omega minimo]

38. Stinky the Clown!!!

:rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Yo ......

..... watch it or the bottle might go off ...... know what I mean?