If Chimpy IS impeached....

[PurpleChez]

Suppose for a moment that the election this november will be fair...

And suppose that voter discontent with the current regime results in a return to power of Congressional Democrats...

And suppose one last time that said Democrats institute impeachment proceedings against Corky and Darth, or at least begin investigations leading toward that end...

How will the Thugs react? I'm wondering about both elected Thugs and the Thug-on-the-Street. I've never been one who thought that the Chimp would declare martial law if things looked really bad for him, but what WOULD he do? Or, rather, what would Rove and Cheney decide to do in his name? What grotesque hypocrisies would the Thugs in Congress stoop to? Actually, I'm almost more concerned about private citizens than Congress. If the Chimp were forced from power I don't think it's totally out of touch with reality to imagine a few hundred self-styled Eric Rudolphs disappearing into the woods to help finish the godly work that the hated liberals so cruelly prevented Their Leader from completing. Under the Chimp we have seen the emergence of a subspecies of conservative that quite literally believes that anyone who does not adhere 100% to the Boy King's proclamations should be shot as a traitor. They've always been out there, but under * they must have felt more comfortable crawling out of their bunkers and going to town for supplies now and then. I've cruised (briefly) at Freeper websites and have seen those exact sentiments in print: dissenters must be killed. Not just arrested. KILLED. So, although I want very much to see these assholes in the dock I worry about a contingent (however small) of insane Christian mercenaries hell-bent on fulfilling the Chimp's legacy and avenging his name. So am I a nut? Should I start making my tinfoil hat tonight?

[Newkophile]

1. Appropriate concerns

You put it down very well. I too have thought about this issue. The atmosphere is so poisonous thanks to the great "uniter". Don't know the answer, but I'd welcome a complete Congressional power shift nevertheless.

[hwmnbn]

2. You seem to overlook the fact ....

that these so-called christian bushbots have had every opportunity to display their courage. Iraq has been going on for 3 years and these assholes are still talking cyber-trash from their living rooms or in their church groups. Fuck them.

I would not be overly concerned that they'd all of a sudden grow balls and go on killing sprees. Besides, liberals have guns too. O8)

[PurpleChez]

13. Quite true, vis a vis their lack of balls, but...

even though they might not have the balls to put their asses where their mouths are and sign up for Iraq I can see them slipping M-80s though the mail slot at Planned Parenthood and thinking that God loved them for it.

[Innocent Smith]

3. Very unlikely

If the Dems were to retake Congress from the Repubs the very earliest they could even start impeachment hearings would be possibly sometime in Feburary 2007. Now at this point the general feeling would be that Bush would be out of office in a year anyway (even though in reality he'll be there until Jan. 2009).

Do you really think that after taking back Congress for the first time in over a decade that they would have the courage to use such a high risk stratergy with a large chorus saying "backlash". Is there anything in their past behaviour to make you think they would act this way?

[Posteritatis]

4. It'll be a mess either way, we need to buckle down and accept that

I figure folks ought to brace for that anyway. If the Dems don't come out ahead in the elections, then it's time to gird peoples' loins for two more years of the aaaaaaaaaugh anyway; if they do, and initiate impeachment procedures, then we're still going to have a battle that makes the Clinton impeachment look like a walk through the sunshine and flowers.

If Bush is successfully impeached, we're probably going to end up in a pattern for the next several administrations in which impeachment is a standard political tactic, like parliamentary no-confidence votes only with rather more malign intent. The Republicans will try to impeach our guy for lying or economic policies or for mismatched socks, the Dems will nail the next Republican president for eating orphans during press conferences or whatever, and the cycle will continue for awhile.

On the one hand, that really sucks. Politics are civility-free enough as is, though my frustration with things has been pushing me further away from that. On the other hand, Bush needs to go down, if just to set a precedent at home and abroad that there's some crap people just won't put up with. If the next few administrations have less crack-addled presidents who find themselves trapped up in petty political bullshit, that sucks, but I also consider it a worthwhile price to pay for getting this guy out of office by any legal means necessary.

As for the folks demanding that dissenters (i.e., half the adult population) be killed? Let them rave. If they've become comfortable enough to say that kind of thing openly, that means they're identifying themselves publicly as holding to those views. I find that strangely comforting, since I at least know who they are, and where they are, and how many of them there are compared to other groups. Besides, most of them will talk the talk without walking the walk; I don't see most of them having the nerve to try to follow through on their wishes, and the Constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity, alas.

As for the ones who actually might? If they want to throw down, then they can go right ahead, but I imagine they might be unpleasantly surprised at how soft and weak and complacent their targets likely won't be.

Bring it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. If the Dems regain either one of the House chambers

Thay should not impeach Smirky immediately. They need to start round the clock hearings and investigations using the power of subpeona to drag each and every one of the lying, cheating bastards in front of them for questioning. After a year of intensive hearings and investigations, everyone will be ready for impeachment and criminal prosecution.

[PurpleChez]

14. I LIKE this plan!

[spag68]

6. spag68

Stop worrying about martial law and start worrying about confinement due to bird flu

[RDU Socialist]

7. for the Democrats to be able to remove Bush from office

They would need 2/3 of the Senate, and there is no conceivable way that we will pick up the necessary 22 additional seats in the Senate because only 16 Republicans seats are up for re-election in 2006. The House can vote in favor of impeachment if the Democrats get a majority, but that's irrelevant to removing Bush from office considering if the Democrats win every Republican Senate seat and keep their Senate seats, it will be 61-38-1 (assuming Bernie Sanders keeps kicking the Republican's ass), and not enough to remove a sitting president.

[Realityhack]

8. good post.

Its not going to happen, so why sit here and theorise about the concequences.

[Independent_Liberal]

9. If we got a margin like 61-38-1, we'd only need 5 Republicans.

That might actually be possible. Just remember, we are not putting all this energy into this movement just to have him acquitted. Removal is the whole point. Impeachment with no removal would be worthless. We have to make sure we get a Senate that's willing to convict.

[Innocent Smith]

20. Impossible

We need to get a 16 seat pickup. There is no way that all 16 Repubs running for re-election are going to lose to get to the 61-38-1 margin. Most likely is a 1 to 2 seat loss by the Repubs this fall. Maybe even staying at the status quo in the Senate with the recent Ohio going-ons. Bush is not going to be removed from office. Well in Jan. 2009 he will be :)

The only good impeachment hearings would do would be to generate bad press for the Repubs by shedding more light on issues that have been ignored. But the Dems are scared of a backlash like they Repubs got with Clinton - so Impeachment is not going to happen even if the Repubs lose the House.

[Independent_Liberal]

11. Another thing I'm wondering...

Maybe he'll just do what Nixon did and resign to avoid impeachment altogether. Have any of you thought of that?

[PurpleChez]

15. Keep in mind that perhaps the key incident leading to Nixon's decision to

resign was when a delegation of congressional republicans went to the white house to tell him that they could no longer support him. Chimpy supposedly is certain that he never makes mistakes, but if his party finally decided that he was doing much more harm than good he might be persuaded that it's time to leave.

I realize, as another poster pointed out, that even with a Democratic takeover of Congress, impeachment AND CONVICTION is not likely. But I still would like to see all means necessary brought to bear against this wretched administration and its "legacy." If they all make it to the end of their terms and impeachment becomes a non-issue I want to see criminal charges pursued in every last case where it's warranted. I want to see them discredited and disgraced.

Now, is that too much to ask? ;)

[cascadiance]

19. This is where other congress critters might be investigated...

If the Dems retake congress (both sides) but still not have a super majority in the Senate (at least in terms of impeachment votes), then perhaps that is the time to bring forward whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, etc. and others who know of wrongdoing that perhaps some of the Senate have conspired in too. If we also get a good share of governorships back from the Rethugs this election (especially where these potential "criminal" Rethug senators are serving), that could serve to help change that equation even without their seats being up for re-election until 2008. Even the fear of that happening for some might get them on the impeachment bandwagon.

Don't forget that the Dems didn't have a supermajority in congress while Nixon was in power too, and still Nixon was afraid enough of pending impeachment that he resigned then.

There will be another third of the congress that isn't being voted on for 2006, but will be afraid of losing their seats in 2008 too, who will perhaps be more susceptible to arm twisting then as well, if investigations can truly show some criminal wrongdoing. At least with a simple majority in one or both houses, we can get some meaningful investigations going instead of having them muzzled like they have been up to this point. Even the prospect of those investigations and showing the current complicity equation by Republican controlled congress now and the later potential consequences for having done so when Dems take over in 2006, might lead to some now allowing investigations to start more this year (and this is probably already happening with some of the Rethuglicans here and there diong this).

The "devil's scenario" for the Republicans is having both Bush and Cheney impeached in 2007, with then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi taking over as president then. That would leave them all in a lurch with the whole executive being purged, and without any real protection from jailtime without the opportunities of getting pardons like they had with Nixon's resignation and Ford's subsequent takeover. If the Republicans sense that the "devil's scenario" might be highly likely in coming about, look to them to try and get a plan B where some "bulletproof" vice president who wouldn't be impeachable, can be put in place after a Cheney resignation, They don't want to rely on Hastert for this if both Bush and Cheney were to resign, as it's being shown now that Hastert could also be impeached as well for some of his actions, which is probably why some of his dirty laundry is being aired even by his lawyer now in terms of responding to that Vanity Fair article earlier that alleged his campaign contrubitions problems.

That way, they'd still have a Republican in power on the executive and maintain many of their existing cabinet positions where they saw fit and could issue pardons for anyone that they felt might be close to going to prison over this.

This may be another reason why we are getting so much stuff on Cheney right now, as he might see the value of being the sacrificial lamb at this stage to avoid himself and others going to prison later. Anything also that helps Rethug congress critters look too much like tools of the administration (like this Dubai ports issue) will also serve to help prevent more seats from falling to the Democrats too.

[Independent_Liberal]

21. Wow! Great ideas! Thank so much for posting this! :)

I'll be sure to share this with a few friends.

[mtnsnake]

10. Don't let them push you around like that

Ya gotta stop worrying about what might happen or what they might do. The fucker has to be either impeached or an impeachment attempt has to be made and nothing less. No Democrat should ever go though life worrying about what might happen if we don't take care of business.

[PurpleChez]

16. I'm not worried...at least not to the extent that I'll stop hoping for *

to be thoroughly disgraced and discredited. But living where I do I can't help wondering how the really wacked-out fundies would react.

[Marr]

12. I don't know, but I will happily invite them to "get over it".

[Minnesota Libra]

17. Don't HOLD YOUR BREATH waiting because it WON'T happen........

.....because ALL Congressional rethugs would block it. I know we can dream but some dreams are out of the realm of possibilities. :argh: Maybe after January 07 we can take up the dream again. :grouphug:

[PurpleChez]

18. Maybe yes, maybe no. I think the UAE port thingy currently in the news

suggests that rethug congress-critters are beginning to wonder if maybe...just maybe...it's getting to the point where their religious devotion to bushism could affect (effect?) their own political futures. I'm not holding my breath but I think there are too many variables in play to assume that anything is certain.

(Dammit! I never get the affect/effect thing straight!!!)