Robert Novak -- Bush worse than Nixon. . .

[pat_k]

. . .His predicament that is.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=19971">Bush Alone
by Robert Novak (more by this author)
Posted 03/26/2007 ET

. . .
"Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here," a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.
. . .

Tell me again, why is impeachment still "off the table'? What was it they they were gonna "accomplish" instead? Who is it they didn't want to "distract"?

[xultar]

1. I love all these fuckers wakin up havin their Comin to Jesus moments.

:rofl:

[EVDebs]

2. The last two yrs of * are resembling a 'Bataan Death March' politically

Might as well take the GOP and drown them in the bathtub but didn't have to, they're slitting their own wrists in a bath of hot water, that they poured for themselves ! New Romans, it seems.

Also see the question they don't dare answer

CUNNINGHAM SCANDAL FIGURE LINKED
TO IRAN CONTRA COCAINE TRAFFICKING
http://www.madcowprod.com/12072005.html

the article poses this important question:

"" Did U.S. intelligence agencies assist in funneling rivers of cash from suspect defense contractors into the campaign coffers of pro-war Republican lawmakers?

Was U.S. taxpayer money secretly used to subvert American democracy? ""

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. because 6 yrs of mental abuse has cowered the Dems in to spinelessness.

A few are standing up and standing tall, but many are not. A good deal of blame can be laid to rest at the feet of AIPAC and its insidious control over foreign policy, even within the Democratic party. A good deal more can be pinned on the DLC and its members. But most of the blame is due to personal failings, a lack of spine and a refusal to take the right, hard, ethical and constitutional step - impeachment.

[pat_k]

9. Yes. I see them as trapped by group think, self-censorship. . .

and denial, but that doesn't let them off the hook. They have minds. They have moral compasses. They are full participants in their dereliction of duty. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=494469&mesg_id=495378

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. I love the way you said that.

May I quote you?

[pat_k]

19. Of course. . .

. . .take anything you consider "good stuff" as your own and spread it around. We could use some more "echoing" on our side of the fence!

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Impeachment is a Terrible Idea!

Don't you agree that having a sociopath as President to triangulate against is more important than saving lives, saving money, and preserving the Constitution?

Sheesh.

[pat_k]

10. Now I see. The emperor's new clothes are magnificent! (nt)

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Removal of Mr. Bush will save neither lives nor treasure.

He is not the problem. His policies are. And we have time to target one or the other.

[pat_k]

22. You'd call a person nuts if they tried to remodel a burning house.

Tragically, our so-called leaders are trying to do just that.

I don't mean to single you out. But the various forms of the poisonous notion that "We need to 'fix' things; impeachment would be a distraction" must be unequivocally rejected.

Our national house is burning. Impeachment is the ONLY thing capable of putting out the fire.

Or, to use another analogy: Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are claiming Unconstitutional and Un-American powers in plain sight. That is their intent. The longer you allow squatters to keep possession, the stronger their claim.

One way or another, to submit to Pelosi's "off the table" edict is to surrender our national "house" without a fight.

Bush and Cheney have turned us into a War Criminal nation that spies on its own citizens. Impeachment is the only way to say "NO! That is NOT who we are."

We cannot begin to purge their co-conspirators and effect repairs under "rule by signing statement." We cannot move forward with honesty if we do not confront the horror of our national predicament head on.

[The Wielding Truth]

5. These republicon devils have been dismantling our country and

selling it off bit by bit since before Nixon. What may have started as confident capitalism has morphed surely into corrupt greed with an almost unstoppable misuse of and disregard for our democracy.

I hear the good republicans blindly supporting and praying for their president while he leaves them with a broken sold out country and waves adios on his way to Paraguay.

If ever there was an antichrist,* sure fits the bill.

[Czolgosz]

6. Me -- Robert Novak worse than Tokyo Rose

...his tarnished soul that is.

[Javaman]

20. Thinking the same thing...

only the worst would know what the worst is.

[merh]

7. you know, I really don't understand why all the snipes about

impeachment being off the table.

This admin is being investigated, if the investigation(s) (as in more than one) yeild evidence of wrong doing that POTUS and/or VPOTUS were aware of and sanctioned, don't you think that impeachment will be considered?

[pat_k]

11. Investigation says one thing: "We're fishing. We don't have a case. . .

. . .for impeachment."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=494469&mesg_id=494538">There is no cover-up to uncover. Refusing to impeach now. . .

[merh]

12. That is how the right spin it, so you like pushing the meme of the

right, those that are struggling to curtail the investigations and impeachment?

Go read up on watergate, you have to investigate before you can pursue charges, no prosecutor in state or federal court would go before a grand jury to ask that charges be returned against a defendant before the law enforcement agents investigated the crime - why do you expect congress to be any different?

[pat_k]

15. They can walk and chew gum. Oversight hearings + Impeachment Hearings.

Cops don't need to "investigate" they are standing there watching a thief in action. There are at least a half-dozen, simple, clear, and COMPLETE cases for impeachment. The House just needs to pick one.

Staffers are more than capable of pulling together a set of draft articles. They are more than capable of gathering the materials, references, and testimony they need to make the case in a week or so of impeachment hearings. Everything they need is at hand. As I point out in the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=494469&mesg_id=494538">referenced post, Bush and Cheney are usurping Unconstitutional power and subverting the Constitution before our eyes. That is their intention. They are daring Congress to stop them. When Congress fails, they get to say "See, the unitary authoritarian power to break the law at whim is ours. Like we said."

Articles could be on their way to the Senate by Mother's Day.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney to rescue the Cosntitution is the first, absolutely mandatory step on the road to extracting our sons and daughters from Iraq. The House could make articles of impeachment a gift to the Mothers of the Nation.

[merh]

16. The post you linked me to included no names of the person(s)

that allegedly made the quote, so I don't know in what context it was made, the person that made it and on what date. Flimsy spreading of the misinformation, I would say.

You don't walk and chew gum when it comes to investigations that could well lead to criminal prosecutions and constitution crisis. Just because you are impatient doesn't mean you are correct in your assumptions.

I say again, go do some studying on the watergate investigation, it might make you feel better.

[pat_k]

18. What part of "no cover up to uncover" isn't clear??

In Watergate, there was a cover up to uncover, therefore investigation was required.

In our current crisis, there is no cover up. Everything required to make a number of different cases for impeachment is public record, therefore no investigation is required.

Bush and Cheney are breaking the law in plain sight. They confess their high crimes against the Constitution every time they make the Un-American, Unconstitutional claim that the executive branch is ruled by a unitary authoritarian executive that can break the law at whim.

They proudly describe how they violate sanctity of our civil rights to "protect us" with their criminal spying operation. They may claim to have stopped the program (as if we can believe them) but they continue to claim they have the "right" to restart it whenever they wish.

They proudly describe how they commit War Crimes to "protect us" by ordering detainees at Gitmo to be subjected to treatment they know violates Geneva and by capturing and holding abductees indefinitely in secret CIA prisons. (Saying "the law doesn't apply to us" is not a get out of jail free card).

Every day a Member continues to quietly submit to, or defend, Pelosi's "off the table" edict, they are surrendering to fascism without a fight and betraying their oath to "support and defend."

Any Member can redeem themselves today by condemning Pelosi's "off the table edict" and calling for impeachment. The Democratic leadership can redeem themselves by responding to the call by picking a charge, introducing a set of draft articles, pulling together materials, convening impeachment hearings, contacting witnesses, and making the case. (e.g., Witnesses like Albert Mora if they go with the War Crimes at Gitmo. See http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/15"> The criminally insane fascist fantasies of John Yoo if you are unfamiliar with what Alberto Mora, outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, documented and reported to his superiors.)

BTW, the quote from my post (i.e., I wrote it). I assumed that would be clear since the link goes to a post with "pat_k" in the upper left corner.

[merh]

21. There is plenty of cover up

what you see now is just the fringe of what they have done, for the most part, there is "no crime" -- no "smoking gun" -- no proveable felony (or high crime and misdemeanor as required for impeachment) and without more, without so much it can't be ignored, there can be no efforts to remove them.

To put it to you in the simpliest of terms, all knew Al Capone was dirty, was a murderer and a thieve and evil as the day is long, it took investigating him and trying everything under the son to catch him, he was so feared and so connected, they had to settle for tax evasion. Now take all Capone and magnify him and his evil and his tentacles of evil time 100,0000 and you might get close to the ilk that is this group.

Your quotes mean squat to me as does your impatience.

[pat_k]

24. Charges are proven in the public record. Pick one. Impeach.

As I already pointed out my reply to you above, they can walk and chew gum. They can keep digging in the 50 or so investigations they have going while they impeach for any of the crimes being committed in front of their noses.

It is irrational to refuse to impeach for high crimes we are all witnesses to because they "need to" dig around and find some other crimes "first."

It is a nuts as it would be for a highway patrol to refuse to pull over a driver that's weaving and barreling down the highway, a menace to everything in their path, because they "need to" turn around and try figure out where the driver came from so they could see if the driver hit anything/anybody in route.

The first priority is to disarm. If you are a cop confronted with a drunk driver, you turn on the siren, and do your best to pull them over and take the keys. If you are a Member of Congress, you accuse, call for impeachment, and do everything you can see that they are removed from power.

[merh]

26. They are not proven in public record - not in a court of law

your "charges" are based upon supposition at best. You can continue to think you are correct, but that won't get you anywhere but frustrated.

Seriously, go read up on watergate or for that matter, clinton's little ordeal - millions of dollars to find him not guilty of a thing.

[pat_k]

27. Public confessions are proof -- proof ABSOLUTELY sufficient to mandate impeachment and removal.

Public confessions are proof -- proof more than sufficient for any court of law, and ABSOLUTELY sufficient to mandate impeachment and removal.

And some of the charges most certainly been proven in a court of law: the Supreme Court. Their ruling in Hamdan -- that Geneva applies to Gitmo -- is a declaration that three years of War Crimes had already occurred. "The law doesn't apply to us" is not a defense. (There is a reason that War Crimes are punishable by the penalty of death, so that those with the power to commit such crimes don't go anywhere near "the line" if they value their skins.)

But, Legal standards of proof DO NOT APPLY to impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. Political pressure, which we take great pains to keep out of our judicial processes, is central to impeachment. Impeachment is the means by which We the People withdraw our consent from our public officials (not that Bush and Cheney every obtained our consent in the first place, but that is another topic.)

If we had intended impeachment to be a legal process that met the standards of legal proof, we would have given the power to the courts. We did not. We gave it to Congress to ensure it was as direct an expression of our will possible in our Federal design. The laws and resolutions passed by Congress reflect our will and precede all law. Unlike the laws passed by Congress, there is NO appeal on impeachment. No legalisms or "technicality" can trump our will. The Judicial Branch and the rules we designed for that branch are completely irrelevant to impeachment. (In fact, at our founding, the consensus was that lawyers should be barred from serving in Congress.)

The definition of "impeachable" is 100% up to each Member of Congress to judge for themselves.

The steps required to impeach are completely up to the House as a body to determine, guided only by House Rules (which they can change at any time). While impeachment hearings can be an effective forum by which to make the case, there is nothing in existing House Rules that requires impeachment hearings to precede a vote on articles of impeachment.

Whether they just need probable cause to impeach or proof beyond a reasonable doubt is completely up to each Member to decide for themselves. (And, like the police taking action to protect the public, probable cause should be all that is necessary to take action to protect our Constitution. Given the dire consequences of leaving an official who is subverting the Constitution in office, that outcome is the error that must be minimized by applying a low standard of proof, particularly when it comes to the House, the body that makes the accusations, not the body that sits in judgment on the accusations.)

Members of Congress are morally bound by their oath to act now to defend the Constitution against the attacks we are all witness to. For a Member of House, that means introducing a set of articles and calling on their colleagues to act on those articles. For Members of the Senate, that means opening up their mouths and telling the truth about Bush and Cheney and sounding the "call to arms" (i.e., call on the public to demand impeachment).

Their oath is an individual oath, their duty an individual duty. It doesn't matter if they stand alone or with a legion, there is NO legitimate excuse for delay.

[merh]

28. Impeachments are like legal proceedings - look at Clinton

to the average ass, it was that he did commit a crime and was guilty of perjury, yet, after the impeachment proceedings, they voted to acquit him. It is more difficult with impeachment, instead of 12 unamimous verdicts of guilty there are so many many more required.

Get over yourself - better still, run for public office and find out for yourself how complicated it is to be a member of congress - hell, find out how difficult it is to be an effective member of congress.

[pat_k]

30. No. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process, for the reasons I cited..

Reasons that you have not responded to or attempted to refute.

No matter how "complicated" it is to be a Member of Congress, each and every Member is first and foremost bound by their oath. No duty and no responsibility is more critical than their duty to support and defend the Constitution. No failure is more grievous than being derelict in that duty.

Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution. That is an undeniable reality.

Bush and Cheney have turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that spies on its own people. That is a simple truth.

We gave Members of Congress the power to impeach to enable them to fulfill their oath when the Constitution is under attack from within the Halls of Power. That is the reality of our Federal design.

We did not give the power to impeach to the judiciary, because withdrawing our consent from a government official must necessarily be a political process, just as giving our consent through lawful elections is a political process. That too is a reality of our Federal design.

Their oath is an oath to fight -- to support and defend; not an oath to win. We take oaths for a reason. So that when the time comes, we act, no questions, no hesitation. That is a moral principle.

Members of Congress are betraying their oath. That is the simple truth.

Boil things down to truth and moral principle grounded in reality and it becomes crystal clear: the only way they can redeem themselves, is to stand and fight for the Constitution and our national soul by impeaching Bush and Cheney. Now.

In betraying their oath, they have created a national crisis graver than any natural disaster or social ill. It is bigger than any international crisis. By tolerating the intolerable, they are surrendering our capacity to recover from disaster with humanity, solve our common problems in ways that reflect our common values, and serve as a force for good in the world. When the good will of the American people is cut out of the loop, no peoples, not our fellow Americans, not other nations, can look to us for help.

It is irrelevant to this discussion and none of your business, but, while I may run for Congress in the future, I believe it is more important to work "out here," helping to build the infrastructure and the organizations that provide services that enable people to act in their civic capacity. We the People are the REAL power in this nation. Ultimately, enforcing the dictates of our Constitution and solving our common problems is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done. And there is a lot more to that than electing officials or being elected.

[merh]

31. You are wrong

Seriously - go back and review the impeachment proceedings of Walter Nixon and the impeachment proceedings of William Jefferson Clinton - they are like legal proceedings and you are an impatient person.

You are dealing in theories and ideals, when facts and evidence are required.

Take the time to go read about Watergate and how long that process took. You know very little about the real world, you have your head so full of ideals and concepts, you have confused your ideal world for the real world.

A link for a thread you shouldn't miss
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x516438

[wordpix]

32. read the impeachment articles---impeachment is BOTH legal and political

Hosue votes to impeach based on charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Senate then tries president and votes to remove him or not.

As far as I'm concerned, pRes * is guilty of a high crime in lying to Congress about the "slam dunk" cherry-picked intel that led us to war. That's enough for me. Of course, there's a lot more he'll be charged with, from secret prisons to the latest: firing of the 8 AGs.

[merh]

35. I don't care what you think - your views don't matter

I worked with those who represented Walter Nixon during his impeachment proceedings -- they are like legal proceedings and are not taken lightly.

You have no legal standing to decide what is or is not a "high crime or misdemeanors" - your views are strictly political. The thing about our nation (that this repuke admin has forgotten) is that we are a society of laws, there are laws to follow and you don't impeach a sitting president or vice president cause you think they are "bad".

[pat_k]

37. Public pressure -- centeral to impeachment -- has no place in legal processes. . .

. . .and we go to great pains to keep such influences out of our legal/judicial processes.

Impeachment may have some of the trappings of a trial, but it is NOT a judicial process. It is a 100% political process. Some (by no means all) the reasons this is so are presented in my exchange with merh.

[merh]

39. It is a legal proceeding

seriously, you need to study the impeachment process.

[pat_k]

41. Until you back up that assertion with something I haven't directly refuted. . .

. . .and until you have directly reponded to the specific facts and arugments I have made, as I have already pointed out, you are simply asserting "It is a legal process because I say it is."

[merh]

44. Your posts aren't worthy of the response you seek given you

truly don't understand the impeachment process and the ramifications of same.

It is a legal proceeding because the LAWS make it a legal process.

[pat_k]

46. If it were as crystal clear as you claim, I would think it would be simple. . .

. . .for you -- or anyone else for that matter -- to be able to make the case and directly refute the arguments and points I have made. Perhaps you could persuade me. But since you have not done that, the debate is not much of a debate.

[merh]

48. You haven't made any points.

Nothing you have written is new or original and many here have been saying all of you have said for years, long before the lightbulb went off over your head.

However, the points you have made and the agruments you have offered do not alter the plain and simple fact that impeachment proceedings are legal proceedings which should never be intiated lightly and upon a whim. The political witch hunt that resulted in the Clinton impeachment proceedings are proof enough that impeachment should be about more than just politics.

[pat_k]

49. I will leave it to other readers to judge this debate.

While I have not presented all the arguments, citations, and facts, I could have, I have certainly presented a few core arguments of the case. Since you claim I did not, I can only conclude that you didn't actually read my replies. In any case, I will leave it to other readers to judge this debate.

[merh]

51. You have brought nothing new to the discussion.

It is laughable to think that you have, as if you alone have been following this administration and are the only one aware of their wrongs. Your total ignorance of the impeachment proceedings negates any points your posts might have because of your out right refusal to learn about the process and/or try to understand the process. What is even more laughable is that you think folks are even paying attention to our debate. Arrogance and ignorance are not a good combination.

[pat_k]

52. Since post #37, I have only refuted your points.

While I repeated a couple points I had made in the posts above that, I did indeed stop piling on new arguments since you had not responded to any of the arguments in previous posts.

[merh]

55. You have refuted nothing.

You have simply claimed to refute them. Impeachment proceedings are legal proceedings, when they are purely political, as you allege, they violate the laws of this land and their intended purpose.

[pat_k]

57. Please cite the laws that you claim are violated . . .

. . .by the fact that impeachment is a political/legislative process, not a legal/judicial process?

As for refuting. You posted a citation. I pointed out that nothing in the citation made the process a judicial process, and further that the use of the word you seem to emphaisixe -- "trial" -- does not make it a judicial process. That the trappings of a trial do not make the process a judicial/legal one. You, once again, did not reply to that point (which I had made previously).

[merh]

61. You go do the research.

Maybe if you actually do the research you will understand the process and the distinctions.

To make things easier on you, may I suggest you go read the Constitution's Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, 3, cl. 6 and the Senate Rules and maybe even the case of Nixon v USA 506 U.S. 224 - the proceedings are much more involved than you think.

[pat_k]

64. Senate/House rules are not made under Federal Code. They are arrived at though political/processes.

Certainly, the rules of the House apply to impeachment, and the rules of the Senate apply to the Senate "trial." Just as all proceedings of the House and the Senate are conducted under House or Senate rules. But those rules are in no way "laws" or subject to judicial review. They are rules that our elected officials set for themselves, and that can be, and usually are, redefined (at least in some in some limited way) with each new set of elected officials we send to Congress though the elective/political processes by which we give our consent to our representatives in Congress.

Our laws are made through political processes by which We the People express our will. Once made, those laws are added to the body of law that is enforced through legal/judicial processes. We can, and often do, make laws that conflict with each other, or with the tenets of our Constitution, and so we have included the mechanisms of appellate and Supreme Court review as part of the judiciary. While those courts can strike down law, and clarify law through interpretation and application which sets precedent, they are not "law makers." They administer the law.

The branches have completely different functions. The Congress is not bound by the body of law or legal standards that apply within the judiciary.

BTW, The above constitutes argument. Just as the other "connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition"¹ I presented in the earlier posts in this exchange constitute arguments (which you asserted don't exist).

The arguments I presented in Post #27 are related to the points made in the above:

If we had intended impeachment to be a legal process that met the standards of legal proof, we would have given the power to the courts. We did not. We gave it to Congress to ensure it was as direct an expression of our will possible in our Federal design. The laws and resolutions passed by Congress reflect our will and precede all law. Unlike the laws passed by Congress, there is NO appeal on impeachment. No legalisms or "technicality" can trump our will. The Judicial Branch and the rules we designed for that branch are completely irrelevant to impeachment. (In fact, at our founding, the consensus was that lawyers should be barred from serving in Congress.)

The definition of "impeachable" is 100% up to each Member of Congress to judge for themselves.

The steps required to impeach are completely up to the House as a body to determine, guided only by House Rules (which they can change at any time). While impeachment hearings can be an effective forum by which to make the case, there is nothing in existing House Rules that requires impeachment hearings to precede a vote on articles of impeachment.

Whether they just need probable cause to impeach or proof beyond a reasonable doubt is completely up to each Member to decide for themselves. (And, like the police taking action to protect the public, probable cause should be all that is necessary to take action to protect our Constitution. Given the dire consequences of leaving an official who is subverting the Constitution in office, that outcome is the error that must be minimized by applying a low standard of proof, particularly when it comes to the House, the body that makes the accusations, not the body that sits in judgment on the accusations.)

============================================
1) "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." (from the Monty Python sketch, but nonetheless, an accurate description of "argument.")

[merh]

66. You have established no new position or is your position, relative

to impeachment proceedings, accurate. LOL, that you continue to cite Monty Phython to bolster your flawed reasoning speaks for itself.

The Framers labored over the question of where the impeachment power should lie. Significantly, in at least two considered scenarios, the power was placed with the Federal Judiciary. See 1 Farrand 21-22 (Virginia Plan); id., at 244 (New Jersey Plan). Indeed, Madison and the Committee of Detail proposed that the Supreme Court should have the power to determine impeachments. See 2 id., at 551 (Madison); id., at 178-179, 186 (Committee of Detail). Despite these proposals, the Convention ultimately decided that the Senate would have "the sole Power to Try all Impeachments." Art. I, 3, cl. 6. According to Alexander Hamilton, the Senate was the "most fit depositary of this important trust" because its members are representatives of the people. See The Federalist No. 65, p. 440 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). The Supreme Court was not the proper body, because the Framers "doubted whether the members of that tribunal would, at all times, be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task" or whether the Court "would possess the degree <506 U.S. 224, 234> of credit and authority" to carry out its judgment if it conflicted with the accusation brought by the Legislature - the people's representative. See id., at 441. In addition, the Framers believed the Court was too small in number: "The awful discretion, which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons." Id., at 441-442.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=506&page=224

Seriously, your insistence that you and you alone have (1) put forth the legitimate reasons for impeachment (others more knowing and more informed than you have stated what you have claimed as your own) and (2) care about the nation and understand the process fills me with ennui.

If you don't take the time to educate yourself then it is you that is the loser.

[pat_k]

69. how would you define an "argument" if not "a connected series of statements . . .

. . . intented to establish a proposition," ?

RE: "You have established no new position or is your position, relative to impeachment proceedings, accurate. LOL," is a contradiction, not an argument.

My counter-argument to your contradiction is this:

My points are relevant to impeachment proceedings because you cited "Senate rules" as evidence that impeachment is a "legal" process. I argued that Senate/House Rules are in no way "laws" -- and further, described ways in which impeachment is absolutely NOT subject to the legal standards that apply to the judiciary (none of which you have taken issue with).

WRT to your reference, it makes my case by highlighting the reasons that we chose to vest the power of impeachment and removal in Congress, not the Judiciary.

And, on that note, I am taking off. As my OP will probably be too old to post to tomorrow, if you have any counter-arguments, I will respond via PM.

[merh]

73. I could care less where you go or what you do.

I've stated the obvious, provided you with sites that should help you understand the impeachment process, thus assisting you in realizing your flawed position. Nothing more is expected or required from you - it is obvious you don't want to learn so continue in your frustrated world of knowing it all. It matters not to me.

[pat_k]

36. Until you (1) refute the specific reasons I cite; and (2) provide reasons . ..

. . .that support your assertions, all you are saying is "You are wrong because I say you are wrong."

I have provided the reasoned arguments and facts that refute your assertions that impeachment is a legal process.

I have provided the reasoned arguments and facts that demonstrate that impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.

Your current point, "they are like legal proceedings" refutes nothing I have said and does not support your assertion. Being "like" a legal proceeding does not make something a legal or judicial process.

Whether or not I am a patient person is irrelevant to the fact that there are no legitimate rationalizations for refusing to impeach now.

[merh]

38. And you can pound your chest and swear you are right all you like

that doesn't make you right. Your ignorance of the system and how the proceedings work is obvious.

Here you go, shame I have to do your research for you

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

* Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.

* The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.

* If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.

* If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.

* If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).

* The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.

* The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.

* The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.

* After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/index.html

Really, google is your friend. Now why don't you take a very deep breath and go do some real research, put your ideals and your emotions aside, douse the torch and chunk the pitchfork, and actually read up on the impeachment process. As I have said, you need a whole lot more votes than the 12 of a petite jury or the majority of the grand jury. As I have said and as you have clearly ignored, we are a society of laws and one would think that our legislators will follow the law should impeachment be pursued. I would think that the efforts of those conducting hearings are doing so to not only get to the truth but to build a case. That is my hope, they need to have all the evidence they can gather to get the votes necessary to remove the man from office, not just "impeach" him.

[pat_k]

40. Nothing in the selected citation makes it a legal process

As I said, having the trappings of a "trial" and the word "trial" do not a judicial/legal process make. I could repeat the many facts and arguments I have already made, but since you have not directly responded to a single one, I don't really see the point.

And, as for "pounding my chest" -- please reference on "chest pounding" statement and I will refrain from making such statements in the future.

[merh]

43. You are truly being ridiculous

It is a legal proceeding, it it operated as a trial under the law (thus making it a legal proceeding)with the Chief Justice overseeing it and testimony taken and facts presented with the power to remove the chief executive officer from power. Dayum, you just can't accept the fact that you are wrong. Your arrogance blinds you to your ignorance.

None of your "facts" have been proven as "facts", I can guarantee you that they would not be stipulated to in the proceedings, and they have not been proven in a court of law or in the legal impeachment proceeding.

Bill Clinton lied to the American people and his wife about his relationship with Monica - that was a fact, but the lie was not the perjury that the right scream it was. He was acquitted by the senate, thus he was not found guilty of lying to the people - he did not commit an offense worthy of removal from office and the impeachment proceedings actually empowered him. You really should do some reading and critical thinking, it might help you better understand things and cut down on your frustrations.

[pat_k]

45. The readers of this exchange can judge that for themselves. . .

. . .and you have still not directly answered a single argument or fact I have presented.

[merh]

47. And I won't provide you with any answers

as you don't deserve any. It's laughable, you don't understand the process, yet you insist that your thinking and your thinking alone is correct and only you truly know what is right and true. Your thinking is based on ignorance of the process and the requirements, thus your thinking is flawed and your "findings" wrong.

[pat_k]

50. "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic. . ." -- Monty Python

"Argument is an intellectual process.
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying
of any statement the other person makes.
-- Monty Python

Your replies are consistently the equivalent of "Is Not!" While that may make for a great http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm">Monty Python sketch, it's a regrettable display on a topic as grave as the preservation of our government.

[merh]

53. LOL, if you were truly concerned with the preservation of the

government you would take the time to educate yourself about impeachment proceedings. Since your posts have proven you are totally ignorant of the proceedings and totally unwilling to learn about the proceedings, I would say that your behavior is harmful to any efforts to perserve our nation. To fully understand the system of laws we are governed by is to empower yourself, those laws include the impeachment laws. Your position that impeachment proceedings are purely political and are not legal proceedings clearly illustrate your ignorance. I have proven you wrong and you offer Monty Python - and I am supposed to take you seriously.

ROFLMAO

[pat_k]

54. II will not respond to the personal attacks you have resorted to.,

If you have debate points, fine. Otherwise, you may have the last word and, as I said, I will let readers of this exchange make their own judgments.

[merh]

59. I'm sure they are all flocking to this thread to do just that.

LOL, you have made it personal - please step away and come back to this thread a week or so from now. You will see that it was you that stooped to the lovely personal comments and cracks.

I do so hope that you take the time to really research impeachments.

[pat_k]

60. Since views went up couple hundred (to 1248) . . .

. . .in the past couple hours, a few people do appear to be looking in.

[merh]

62. That's just folks trying to figure out if this thread matters.

They really don't care what you and I debate.

[pat_k]

63. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Since I have no access to the site statistics I am unable to see which URLs within the thread viewers are clicking on. As I said, "a few appear to be looking in" -- I did not assert that they were necessarily reviewing our debate, but certainly some may be.

[TahitiNut]

58. You are making a deontological (duty-based) argument to a consequentialist.

I find it almost impossible to bridge that gap. To argue "Do The Right Thing" with someone who's always asking "What Do I Get Out of It?" is apparently fruitless. Even when I point out the basic incompatibility of the two ethical systems, I hear yawns. This is, imho, the fundamental corruption of partisanship - seeking advantage in lieu of principle and integrity.

[pat_k]

65. In what way are oaths meaingless "partisanship" (edited)

Which points in of my "duty based" argument would you argue against? (Labeling is not counter-argument.)

[TahitiNut]

67. Sorry. "Pearls before swine" and all that.

:shrug: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[pat_k]

70. Answering a simple question with an insult. . .

. . .is a good way to get kicked off. While I have never reported anybody, you may wish to refrain from such insults in the future.

[TahitiNut]

72. It's a shame you're not familiar with the Sermon on the Mount ...

... and the prescription therein to Do The Right Thing. My post was a reference to it. That you CHOSE to read it (AND MY PRIOR POST) in the hostile fashion you have is testiomony to the communication chasm on DU and the propensity to attack others EVEN WHEN NO OFFENSE WAS GIVEN.

(Clue: My post #58 was ENTIRELY supportive of your duty-based argument. Totally. Yet you chose to baselessly view it as oppostion and fired without any comprehension of your target.)

So, you threaten me with excommunication? Ironic. :puke:

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST MATTHEW
CHAPTER 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be bgiven you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that bmen should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but cinwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall aknow them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

I think it's stunning how many people can read this and, immediately after reading the first verse, proceed to judgment - at once proclaiming subscription and behaving in a contrary fashion

[pat_k]

74. Aplologies TahitiNut.

I realize it is not an excuse for jumping to the wrong conclusion, but my thinking was clouded by my exasperation with another exchange. That coupled with ADD impulsiveness is not a recipe for reasoned dialog.

And, of course, I compounded my first "jump" with the next. My bad. Please accept my apologies. Your caution about the propensity for adversarial reaction on DU is well taken. Thanks for having the patience to clarify.

[TahitiNut]

75. No problem. We ain't none of us pluperfect.

:silly: :dunce:

[pat_k]

76. What's so embarrassing. . .

. . .is that your post (#58) is perfectly clear. If there had been any ambiguity, I wouldn't feel quite so silly
:silly:

[Occulus]

68. Or, perhaps, it shows confidence that evidence of impeachable crimes

will be uncovered through investigations, leaving impeachment as the only realistic option.

[pat_k]

71. When you have solid cases to impeach and remove,

. . .it doesn't matter how confidenct you are that you will get additional evidence for more cases. Waiting for more than you need is an illegitimate and dangerous rationalizations for delay -- particularly when more damage is being done to our Constituional democracy every day we leave the massive power of the American presidency in the hands of Bush and Cheney .

Refusing to move to rescue the Constitution because you want to uncover additional high crimes first is like refusing to attempt to rescue a kidnap victim who is being tortured because you want to investigate other crimes the torturers have committed first.

The analogy is particularly apt because people are being tortured, so refusing to impeach is tantamount to refusing attempt to rescue torture victims.

[Poiuyt]

8. Bush may be isolated from his own party, but they still vote the way he wants them to

[pat_k]

13. When specific charges are "on the table" in articles of impeachment. . .

. . .Bush and Cheney may find themselves isolated by a deafening silence.

. . .
Defending Bush and Cheney against very real, and very grave articles of impeachmetn is not an appealing prospect to Republicans who have been doing everything they can to "distance" themselves. We have no idea how these people will vote, or even if they will allow it to get to a vote. Bush and Cheney may find themselves isolated by a deafening silence as Republicans run for cover rather than try to defend abuse of signing states to nullify McCain's amendment so they could torture people (or whatever articles are voted out first). They could force Bush and Cheney to resign "for the good of the Party" and to keep the White House in Republican hands.

The "can't win" rationalization also ignores the fact that impeachment is not a "one-shot" deal. Bush and Cheney are attacking our Constitution on so many fronts, Members of the House can take their pick:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=494469&mesg_id=494934">More. . .

[Disturbed]

23. GW Bush- High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

GW Bush- High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.





The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map

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

[pat_k]

25. And we just need one. The simpler the case, the better. . .

. . if the first fails, than draft another set of articles and make the case. . .

There's plenty of ammo.

[wordpix]

33. thanks, that's thorough

[kerry-is-my-prez]

29. Novak is back on the anti-Bush bandwagon again.....

I guess now that the whole Plamegate affair is over and he doesn't think he can get in trouble for it he's going back to it.

[wordpix]

34. I love how the bushies are now anti-Bush. Novak is a shill rat who's jumping ship

to save his ass

[BurtWorm]

42. Is he saying that's a *good" thing?

:wtf:

[nolabels]

56. Extra wack Novak probably likes to leave himself wiggle room.........

just in case he slips in the shower again :yoiks: