Arguments Against Impeachment Fall Short

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23205

Arguments Against Impeachment Fall Short
Submitted by Chip on Sat, 2007-06-02 07:42. Impeachment

My Turn: Arguments against impeachment fall short
By Dennis Morrisseau

Two objections raised by opponents of impeachment are: 1) impeachment would distract from the investigations that are happening right now and 2) given the political landscape, it is not possible to achieve the two-thirds majority in the Senate necessary to convict, so why proceed?

These arguments are nonsense or worse.

1. Impeachment would heighten focus on investigations of wrongdoing. Here is the text of the U.S. House resolution in the Nixon impeachment (HR.803, Feb. 6, 1974):

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

2. Only the House Judiciary Committee takes up impeachment. That committee can and historically it has been able to handle other tasks simultaneously with an impeachment investigation. It can cite other investigations by other committees of the House and Senate, giving increased prominence to those investigations; but nothing about impeachment would stop other committees from pursuing investigations of interest to them, or the regular work of Congress.

In April alone, while conducting its attorney purge investigation, the committee had time to pass a federal hate crimes bill, express concern about a raid at a mall in Chicago, look for justice for survivors of the 1921 Tulsa riot, examine federal judicial compensation, and investigate Katrina's impact on New Orleans' criminal justice system. But even if impeachment were to take up the whole attention of the House Judiciary Committee, that amounts to another investigation -- in this case, one that reaches all the way to Bush and Cheney -- something other investigations at this point are not doing. We might want to ask why.

3. Not even Republicans are stones. Discovery of wrongdoing by Bush or Cheney will move Republican votes. There are 49 Republicans in the present Senate, 21 of whom will have to face the voters in 2008. In 1974 there were 42 Republican senators -- clearly enough to block impeachment of Nixon. But Nixon resigned prior to an impeachment vote after House Judiciary Committee hearings very clearly sketched in for Americans just what Nixon had allowed to be done on his watch and a delegation of Republican Senators told him bluntly that he would receive no more than 15 supporting votes out of 42 Republicans in the Senate. The reason for the lack of Republican support for Nixon was clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing unearthed during the Watergate criminal investigations.

I am indebted to Carl Etnier of Montpelier for good work on this issue.

Dennis Morrisseau of West Pawlet was a candidate for Congress in the 2006 election, running under the ballot label "Impeach Bush Now."

[Enthusiast]

1. If impeachment isn't justified....................

If impeachment isn't justified at this moment in history just when would it be? This gross abuse of power can't go unchallenged. If there is no impeachment Bush supporters will do their regular chop job on history like they did with Reagan. Shrub needs some jail time to bring everything into focus for the American people.