Impeachment Must Proceed No Matter If Anyone Is Removed From Office Or Not

[ThomWV]

I see the nonsense all the time; where will the 67 votes necessary for and impeachment and removal from office to be successful? Who cares? Just beginning the impeachment process in the house - where there are 435 votes to contend with, not the 67 of the Senate - and process which in itself should be enough to bring the continuing illegal activity of the Executive to a screeching halt.

It is unimportant at the moment that Bush be removed from office, what is important is that accountability to the law return and proceeding in the House would move us in the right direction no matter how protracted the matter or even what the end result might be.

Every notice that when a person gets stopped by a police office they usually drive pretty sanely for at least a little while afterward?

[driver8]

1. I agree with you 100%!

It is important for the public to know what these criminals have been up to. It is also important for this administration to know that they can and will be held accountable for their actions.

This "we don't have enough votes" bullshit is a sorry excuse.

[WilliamPitt]

2. You make my head hurt.

It is unimportant at the moment that Bush be removed from office, what is important is that accountability to the law return and proceeding in the House would move us in the right direction no matter how protracted the matter or even what the end result might be.

Come again?

How does accountability return by way of a failed impeachment? Do you think they'll be scared into behaving well? Do you really think so?

Or perhaps a failed impeachment will empower them, and allow them to a) claim to be absolved, and b) paint themselves as martyrs.

You don't create accountability with a failed attempt at holding someone accountable. Your logic is astonishingly flawed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Do you believe that Bush committed high crimes/misdeamenors?

[WilliamPitt]

4. Yes.

I also believe that a House impeachment without Senate conviction will accomplish nothing.

All the evidence on Earth won't sway 20 GOP Senators to vote for conviction.

So.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Do you believe Bush will veto any funding bill with timelines?

Do you think congress has enough votes to override such a veto?

[WilliamPitt]

9. Yes, and not yet.

[yodermon]

26. How may GOP senators are up for re-election in '08?

and how many are safe seats?

My view: hold hearings, hearings, investigations, and more hearings, and let the depth of their corruption be exposed (since the corp. media won't do it).
If it leads to impeachment, great; if not, may it lead to the utter decimation of the republicon party for supporting this crook.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Do you think bush can run the country and fight impeachment at the same time?

I don't.

Of course, he has been doing a rather ineffective job of running the country but that is not my point.

Impeachment would keep him from doing much more damage. He will be too busy fighting impeachment to invade any more countries or take any more constitutional rights away.

[puebloknot]

34. And...impeachment proceedings would expose the malfeasance...

...of Bush, et al., out in the open, right up to Election 2008.

[ThomWV]

8. Please Explain yourself - I May Be Missing Your Point

Is the point you make then is that impeachment can not be successful no matter what information becomes available to the public by way of the proceedings?

Either you believe he has committed an impeachable offense or not and either you believe in the rule of law or not. It appears from your answer that you believe in neither.

My point is that when facts are known - and they can only become known if impeachment proceeds - then impeachment will, in the end, be successful. If its not then the country is lost.

[WilliamPitt]

15. OK

Is the point you make then is that impeachment can not be successful no matter what information becomes available to the public by way of the proceedings?

We can impeach with a simple House majority. We won't convict without 17+ GOP Senators. 17+ GOP Senators will never come to flip. Impeachment without conviction is noise. So, my answer is yes.

Either you believe he has committed an impeachable offense or not and either you believe in the rule of law or not. It appears from your answer that you believe in neither.

Grandstanding horseshit, self-righteous blather, and bite me. It doesn't matter what I believe, by the way, nor even what I can prove. What matters is whether impeachment and conviction can be accomplished. I don't believe it can be.

My point is that when facts are known - and they can only become known if impeachment proceeds - then impeachment will, in the end, be successful. If its not then the country is lost.

You have a remarkable amount of faith in the Republican Party, friend. You really believe facts and evidence can change their minds and override their party loyalty?

Really?

[kimmerspixelated]

22. I enjoy your writing.

You have written some great articles, but I do think you misunderstand that most Americans believe this: IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING!

I feel, as Americans, true patriots as most of us here are, that America CANNOT hold our chins up in the world and have even a slightest chance of ever being looked upon respectfully again, unless we at least TRY to impeach!!!

Would you not go to court to fight an unjust ticket, just because you thought you couldn't win?

[EFerrari]

11. Isn't that future tripping? Do you think so little of the Democratic leadership

to believe that they can't use this impeachment at least as well as the failed Clinton impeachment? The one that RW wackjobs reference every day on call in shows as if it had succeeded?

Come on, Will. We have the legal grounds. Would that we also had the testicular fortitude.

/okay, so I can't type

[pdrichards114]

13. I disagree, the logic is spot on,

by extending your logic, we wouldn't even have a legal system.


No prosecutor is 100% guaranteed that a jury will return a conviction or the appropriate prison sentence in the event a conviction is secured. So because we can't guarantee a conviction or prison sentence lets not prosecute anybody for any crimes anymore. I think you just might be onto something here.

People have been convicted and sentenced to prison over circumstantial evidence at best, and Bush's crimes are open, apparent and stink to high heaven. Impeachment, even as show, is required. At the very least it will slow these asshats down.

[Phredicles]

19. A failed attempt at holding someone accountable is still better than

never even fucking trying.

[puebloknot]

35. You don't create accountability by failing to ever bring charges...

...in the first place. Do you think Nuremberg was a stacked deck, where the outcome was known before the trials were held?

[Mister Ed]

39. Dear Mr. Pitt,

For two and a half years, I have followed your work with great appreciation. I've enjoyed your incisive insights. I've quietly applauded your ability to remain calm in the midst of hysteria. I've been grateful to you for all the heavy lifting you do. My own meager efforts scarcely qualify me as much more than a spectator to the battles you fight on our behalf.

But even the best must sometimes be wrong - and sir, on this matter, you are wrong. Wrong for all the reasons elucidated by others on this subthread. Wrong for reasons exhaustively cataloged elsewhere by innumerable DU posters.

The calculated pragmatism you prescribe is a certain recipe for defeat, acquiescence, and submission to an utterly ruthless and remorseless enemy. Inaction is surrender. Only courage can save this nation now.

I hope that, over time, you will reconsider your position on the need for impeachment. In the meantime, I continue to be grateful to you for all that you do.

Sincerely,

Mister Ed

[EFerrari]

6. Yep. And we need to hold that threat over Junior's head.

K&R

[GOTV]

10. the threat is gone when the Senate acquits.

[EFerrari]

12. Kreskin -- is that you?

:)

[GOTV]

20. Don't agree? Let;'s see your list of Senators who will convict. n/t

[EFerrari]

40. Thank you for making my point. You don't have one, I don't have one.

What we have is a populace that is turning on Bush/Cheney like milk left out in the desert for a week. And we have Republics distancing themselves from Junior in anyway they can, even with their dead felon Reagan.

What are their poll numbers? And how would impeachment hurt us again?

What utter crap.

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Not true. He can be impeached again.

Several times, thanks to his many offenses. Some will be harder for the Republicans to ignore than others.

[GOTV]

7. Can't we try an exorcism first? It also won't accomplish anything but at least we can say we did it

I don't want to appear weak on this administration or anything.

> Every notice that when a person gets stopped
> by a police office they usually drive pretty
> sanely for at least a little while afterward?

Not when the police tell me I was stopped unjustly and I'm totally innocent which is what a Senate acquittal will mean.

[conscious evolution]

14. Absolutely

Impeach his ass anyway.
By the way,we don't need 67 Senators.All we need is 2/3 PRESENT!

[Qutzupalotl]

31. A recess impeachment. I like it.

Which side would be more motivated to cut their vacations short?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. The beatings will continue until morale improves! n/t

[Phredicles]

17. Plus we need to show the world that many of us repudiate this gang.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. I AGREE!

:applause:

[BurtWorm]

21. That was what the Republicans argued in 1998.

I expect that revelations about the US Attorney scandal, the phony vote-fraud scandal, the pre-war intelligence scandal, etc. will continue to pour out of this admin with a steady beat over the next two years. Perhaps something in that flood will catch the Bushists by the cheek and yank them out of the water. I am not counting on it, however. I am not counting on impeachment to salve the wounds Bushism has dealt to the country and constitution. I am trying to prepare myself philosophically for the real possibility that justice may never be done until Bush is long forgotten except in the context of discussions about the worst presidents in history.

[mdmc]

23. Y E S

r

[Donnachaidh]

24. I agree with you, but have to point something out

This comment --

"Every notice that when a person gets stopped by a police office they usually drive pretty sanely for at least a little while afterward?"

You're going on the assumption that the people who need to be impeached understand that they've broken laws, and that they can be forced to be responsible. I don't see that anywhere in this group in washington.

They've had free rein over politics for so long they feel as if they have personal mandates to do as they damn well please. Even with the oversight meetings, these animals are sitting back in their offices laughing their asses off, because they've decided to "I don't recall" their way through the next year and a half.

We're losing a CLASS war in this country. And it isn't JUST the republicans. It's the wealthy who control the media. It's the wealthy that control the lobbyists. It's the mega-churches that control the religious masses. And we're stuck watching the destruction of everything that was once good in this country.

These groups have set out to strip every New Deal protection we put in place during the last depression. And they are so close to winning entirely that I grieve for my country, and our children.

I don't know how to end this. But I suspect that until people REALLY start marching, and REALLY start yelling - we're going to be ignored by everyone in Washington.

[Tigress DEM]

25. U R Correct!

[deacon]

27. kick

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. We need to strangle him

and keep him from doing any more damage. So, yes, impeach regardless of the results.

[gravity]

32. It would be effective as those non-binding resolutions

What are you trying to accomplish in Impeachment? To send a message?

The problem is that impeachment will just divide Congress and this nation, at the same time, take time away from more effective legislation. Not to mention the big legal mess it will create. We will have to put forth formal legal charges which this administration will just try every legal loop hole in the book to get around just like with Alberto Gonzales.

In an ideal world, I would say go for impeachment, but reality is much more complicated.

[Golden Raisin]

33. Totally agree.

Even if it fails utterly. Even if there is no conviction. This is a time to go on record and to stand up and be counted. Call me naive, quixotic, politically unastute, whatever --- but I don't want to be remembered 50 or 100 years from now like we remember and excoriate those Germans who knew and saw the evil cancer growing on their country and sat by and did NOTHING while Hitler and the Nazis rose to power.

[Hubert Flottz]

36. It's what the people want and congress works for us...I think.

It would at least slow BushCo down to a crawl for the rest of his days in Washington.

[Vidar]

37. Thank you. I agree.

[mmonk]

38. That sounds a lot like a democracy.

I thought America had moved on to an elective dictatorship model.