I don't care if we have the votes to impeach him or not

[BlueStater]

We should go for it anyway.

It's about principles and doing what's right. I understand that's a difficult concept in America these days but we're a nation of laws and if the Democrats don't try to impeach him for what he's done then they're not doing their fucking jobs. How we are we ever supposed to take them seriously as lawmakers ever again if they won't stand up for our Constitution simply because they're afraid of a few cliche Republican smears?

Let the Republicans and that asshole Lieberman vote against impeachment. Let them explain it to the voters. And let them explain it to the pages of history on why they protected two criminals from facing the punishment they obviously deserve.

[chknltl]

1. Thank You

:patriot: An honor to be the first recommend.

[mmonk]

2. I'm with you.

Without doing something, there will not be any healing in this country nor repairing of divisions now opened up. There will be ongoing cynicism and a lack of trust as well.

[Disturbed]

3. Yup. I still want Darth to be Impeached first.

Start with him and move directly to Busholini.

[rodeodance]

9. Would have to be done at the same time---both at once.

[bananarepublican]

87. Simultaneously with Gonzales! n/t

[OneBlueSky]

4. yup . . . n/t

[corkhead]

5. Letting these two criminals slide I believe sets a dangerous precedent.

Impeachment was put into the Constitution for a reason. If not for the high crimes and misdemeanors of these kleptocrats, then what is it going to take, besides another Democratic blowjob?

These fuckers need to be yanked out of office before the entire Middle East is ablaze!

[Edweird]

6. I agree 100%. I am infuriated by the lack of action.

Our reps are too busy playing politics to bring up impeachment. I say, screw "bi-partisanship". Let them vote on party lines. We are for impeachment, they are against. No "non-binding" uselessness. Let their votes determine their future. Even if we don't have the votes, I want to see some definitve action. I want to see a line in the sand. TODAY.

[democrank]

7. If out and out lying about the reasons for war

isn`t grounds for impeachment, I don`t know what is.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Welcome to our side ....

..... one by one by one, people are coming to the same realization.

[watercolors]

10. I agree 100%

We must, where do we start? I have contacted my senators and reps. bth e-mails and phone calls. I get non-comital replies. Cowards all of them!

[Egalitarian]

11. Energize the base.

The democratic party will throw away huge victories if they do not pursue this. Pursueing impeachment would rally many non-voters to get involved too. I hope and pray for impeachment but I keep thinking, "Welcome the the United Corporate States of America."

If impeachment proceedings do not surface soon, can we safely conclude that the Bush Regime is untouchable?

[mmonk]

12. It's my opinion

that not defending the constitution sets a precedence that damns a generation.

[Egalitarian]

22. Bingo. The precedent set by not impeaching

would be with us for a long time.

[yy4me]

13. Without question, this should start now. No more debate about it.

At the rate decisions are make in Washington, the prospect of impeachment will still be "considered" as **** and his evil vp wave their way into oblivion at the end of their term. Impeachment proceedings need to start right away. Their dirty laundry needs to be aired so the country can see what a bunch of crooks and liars we have at the helm.

[jarnocan]

14. Mandate Accountability! nt

[gademocrat7]

15. I agree.

this debacle has to be ended now not later.

[frogcycle]

16. yep

thought it would be counterproductive a few months ago; now i think it needs to happen to truly "out" all the remaining fence-sitters

I think the Dems are assembling the bill of particulars and it will happen within a month. hell, the list is pretty good if you just use the Declaration of Independence. Change a word here and there, leave out just one or two grievances irrelevant to this case, and you got it.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

of course, we could treble the list without even trying...

[Meat Stew]

17. I'm with you

Bush should be impeached.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. What gets me mad is how the Dems give out lame excuses for not

impeaching him, while all along they probably already cut deals with the Republicans to go easy on Bush. And the more they vacillate, the more the confusion sets into the public and the more Bush will be able to benefit from that confusion because Congress doesn't control 'nuthin. They are reactionary. Not pro-active at all. And in this dirty business, you'll always be one day late, one dollar short with that kind of non-strategy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I disagree - I'll take actual changes over empty gestures any day.

A doomed attempt at impeachment, which the populace can see from day one will achieve nothing but wasting the government's time and money, will help return Republicans in 2008.

Unless there's a chance of success (which there isn't, and won't be), impeachment procedings would be catastrophic for America.

[Joe Fields]

24. That is faulty reasoning, sir.

You cannot unequivocably say that impeachment would be a doomed attempt. If hearings and investigations are held, and evidence for impeachment conviction mounts, it might just be a "slam dunk."

But regardless, hearings and investigations are imperitive. There are enough questionable activities to warrant them, and if the house feels there is enough for a trial, then let it be.

[rambler_american]

60. Empty Gestures?

You may recall after the damning evidence piled up against Nixon, it was the Republicans who told him he had to resign. You don't think that could happen again? They have their own jobs to consider too.

[jwirr]

78. Yes, they managed to get a new vp and keep the WH in their hands

by getting rid of Agnew, getting Nixon to resign and saving face with dear old Ford. They should have all been kicked out but that did not happen.

I want to ask a couple of questions: First, is it possible to impeach both the pres and vp at the same time and second, how many of you who believe that this can be won are lawyers?

I want nothing more than to see the whole administration and all their henchmen thrown out but I would rather make sure that all the facts are in our hands first so the investigations and requests for information must be completed.

One of the things I remember from the Watergate hearings was that it was not just one set of circumstances that were being followed up on. They would ask all kinds of questions for all angles. That can be done with *ss & co.: lies about the war, energy planning secrets, failures to respond to Katrina, conspiracy to destroy the constitution/habeas corpus, failure to stop 9/11, misuse of funds, profiteering, and that is only part of the list of items these guys can be accused of. The more proof we have in our hands the better. I would guess that if *ss keeps fighting the redeployment of our troops they will go after him in a month or so.

One of the best ways to win any argument is to give the other guy enough rope to hang himself.

[Usrename]

20. Impeach them both immediately. There is no other option.

Restoration of good governance has to begin with totally discrediting the entire Bush Doctrine.

It must be shown to be the complete and utter failure that it really is, now, before we have an economic collapse.

Turning a blind eye to the criminality of this group is not just a cowardly act, it can only make everything worse.

We have to clean up this mess now, the world is watching, and they will not wait forever.

[In Truth We Trust]

21. IMPEACH NOW! Let there be justice and rule of law! k&r

[Joe Fields]

23. I've been saying this very thing for years now.

Glad to hear more voices joining the chorus.

[Senator]

25. Well said. Besides, there is NO "Plan B"

The non-impeachment addicts are really advocating that we accept what the neofascist regime allows -- to go forward with them in Orwellian dishonesty and subservience.

They'll use the Cut the Funding Hoax to distract themselves and others.

But Only Impeachment is something other than impotent reflex.

If the LieberDems continue this complicity, those of us who wish to remain productive must turn to promoting a new round of Ned Lamonts, Jim Webbs, John Testers and Patrick Murphys. (Big Thanx to the DLCers for all the extra time.)

It is time we rid ourselves, the Big AND Small "D" Democrats, of these meddlesome beltway bishops.

--

[Individualist]

27. Some are attempting to blur the distinction between requirements

for impeachment and requirements for conviction. I find it inconceivable that so many DUers who are politically knowledgeable would not know the difference between the two. This leads one to speculate about their motivation.

You're right about the LieberDems complicity. To ignore treason is to condone it.

[In Truth We Trust]

58. Indeed! One truly does wonder.

[Senator]

80. I think many come to that "blur" honestly

In casual conversation the word is generally meant to cover "forcible removal." The much larger problem is the endemic defeatism of our "leadership" and many of our ostensible allies.

If they would only realize that impeaching the regime is the most effective thing they could do to advance any and all issues and concerns -- for the anti-war effort, for the environment, for women's rights, for poverty relief, union rights, civil rights -- literally everything.

Impeachment really is a panacea.

--

[truedelphi]

66. You are right - there is no other way

Just empty words, and "non binding" resolutions

What a sad and sorry sack of listless pretenders

[porphyrian]

26. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Mnemosyne]

28. knr! n/t

[gratefultobelib]

29. Yes. I've definitely changed my mind over the past few weeks. Get the process started--investigate

[dave123williams]

30. Not having the votes didn't stop the GOP.

Just ask Bubba. They knew they couldn't succeed in Impeachment, so they just smeared and smeared and smeared. They're like four-year-olds.

If we're to Impeach, it should stick.

[Individualist]

31. The GOP did impeach Clinton

All that's needed for impeachment is a simple majority of the House. Failure of the Senate to convict did not change the status of impeachment.

We now have the majority in the House and the votes to impeach.

[redqueen]

32. Damn straight!

It's just the RIGHT thing to do, under the law.

You don't ignore one MASSIVE violation after another, worrying about how 'we'll lose in the senate'... screw that... make these criminals go on record as supporting the criminal in chief.

It's WORTH IT!

[Prophet 451]

33. Agreed

The votes to succeed are irrelevant, one does not enter a trial (which is what an impeachment is) assured of success. One enters hoping for success, hoping that one has built and will present a sufficiently strong case to convince but the potential for failure is always there.

Once, I might have urged the same cautionary approach but now, with Cheney effectively declaring himself answerable to no-one and Bush effectively announcing his intention to ignore Congress (and if that isn't a case for "contempt of Congress" which Nixon was charged with, I don't know what is), we can no longer afford to be cautious. Time is running out and we must attempt a stand now before we lose even that opportunity.

Impeach them. Let them have their day in court and let us see where it ends.

[Bake]

37. Impeachment is a political proceeding, not a legal proceeding

Let them have their "day in court?" It never sees the inside of a courtroom; it sees the inside of the Senate. I would never advise a client to file a lawsuit if I didn't think it had a good chance of success. Hence, the votes ARE relevant. Impeachment is inherently POLITICAL. It is not a "trial" in the sense that a criminal or civil case is tried, even if it is presided over by the Chief Justice. There are no summary judgments or directed verdicts, no matter what the evidence shows. You have to have the votes.

Having said that, I think Will was right the other day - we DON'T have the votes to remove the Boy King from office. That might change, depending on the results of investigations/hearings. What I think WOULD make the situation change would be if BushCo attempts to invade Iran. That alone would get enough Republicans in the Senate worried about their own jobs that they might send a delegation over to the White House and tell the pRez to step down or be removed. Short of that, I don't see it.

Bake

[G_j]

34. right thing to do, it is also their duty!

if they cannot hold the criminals accountable then we have all lost
I doubt if America can ever recover from such unchecked treachery

[Individualist]

35. We do have the votes to impeach

A simple majority of the House is all that's needed to impeach, and we have that majority.

[RestoreGore]

36. I'm with you on that. n/t

[earth mom]

38. I'm with you 100%!

I am so fucking sick of the naysayers, the wimps, the enablers, the politics players in Washington and here on DU who say Impeachment is not going to happen. Who made them the "decider"?! Like :wtf:

IMPEACHMENT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE. Simple as that! :grr:

And one more thing. What's the purpose of DU anyway? IMO, it should be a positive, constructive place. Instead we get DINOs and freepers coming around here and shouting their negative B.S. over and over trying to drown any talk of Impeachment out. It's absolutely disgusting! :puke:

:rant:

[BlueStater]

39. Whoa!

When I posted this early this morning, this topic was hardly getting any responses at all. I wake up a few hours later and 38 responses and 32 recs? Geez! I believe that's the most recs any of my topics have ever recieved.

Thanks to you all for taking the time to respond to my post and showing your support. Impeachment must be done. If Bush is allowed to finish his term without any serious challenge to his power then I'll have no hope for the future of our government.

And I'll hold every goddamn senator accountable for his/her inaction. You took an oath to defend for Constitution from exactly the sort of thing Bush is doing. If you aren't going to stand up for it then you sure as hell don't deserve to be a senator anymore.

[GOTV]

40. Unlike you, I want Bush stopped and not given a vindication....

... which is what impeachment without conviction is.

> Let the Republicans and that asshole Lieberman vote against impeachment.
> Let them explain it to the voters.

That will be easy to do as long as the voters don't care much about impeachment. And as of the last polling year - they don't

[BlueStater]

44. Impeachment won't "vindicate" Bush

I have no idea what poll you're talking about but most people know Bush is an asshole and has seriously abused his power as president. The public isn't so stupid to believe Bush is innocent of wrongdoing just because the corrupt shitheads in the Senate voted to keep him in power.

[GOTV]

46. An aquittal in the Senate means he is not guilty. That's a vindication...

And I'm not talking about ONE poll. I'm talking about the majority of polls on the matter.

> most people know Bush is an asshole and has seriously
> abused his power as president. The public isn't so
> stupid to believe Bush is innocent of wrongdoing just
> because the corrupt shitheads in the Senate voted to
> keep him in power.

Easy to make claims when you don't feel the need to back them up with evidence.

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

[BlueStater]

48. Regardless of whether the public favors it or not, impeachment needs to be done

What the public thinks in this paticular matter is completely irrelevant. This is about standing up for the Constition of the United States of America and if we can't do that then this country is dead.

[helderheid]

41. recommended - I didn't see your post before posting a similar sentiment!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x228176

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. I defer to MLK, Jr. again.

Wow, I've done that a couple of times today. His explanation to concerned ministers in his letter from the Birmingham jail pretty much sums it up for me. Moral imperatives trump complacency.

[pat_k]

43. You got it. Defending the indefensible ain't fun. (Just ask Libby's "defense")

Bush "defenders" will go the way of Libby's -- blow a lot of hot air, stonewall and then submit to the inevitable.

What Senators may or may not do is the least of our worries.

The impeachophobics in our own ranks are a FAR more serious problem. We've got to help them conquer their immobilizing condition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=217956&mesg_id=227382

[Kurovski]

45. K&R

Let those who do not vote to impeach in the face of high crimes stand forever in history as what they then are: failures. Failures to do the simple job spelled out for them in protecting The Constitution of the United States of America.

[WritersBlock]

47. Kicking back up to the top 'cos I fully agree. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. Why? Without the votes, it's an exercise in futility...

that does nothing but distract Congress from far more important and pressing matters. I don't really think it's productive to waste time on symbolic gestures that won't actually achieve anything.

[BlueStater]

50. What the hell is more important than protecting our Constitution?

Some of the posts here make me sick. I guess the little turd in the White House was right when he said it was just a "goddamn piece of paper".

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. It would be a completely POINTLESS EXERCISE.

It would, in fact, be STUPID to move forward with impeachment, with a dead certainty that there aren't enough votes in the House to impeach OR enough votes in the Senate to convict. There are more pressing issues facing the country, which Congress SHOULD concentrate on. The media circus that impeachment proceedings would be would distract from that, and make working on any other agenda much more difficult.

[BlueStater]

54. You don't seem to get it

It's hardly some sort of symbolic thing like you seem to think.

Every lawmaker in this country took an oath to uphold our Constitution. By not protecting it against the sort butchering Bush is doing, they're not doing their damn jobs.

Defending our Constitution trumps politics and the lame fucking election. Always.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. No, you don't seem to get it.

Pragmatism trumps idealism. Two choices here: impeachment proceedings (which will resolve nothing; the votes aren't there to impeach or convict); OR work to repair the damage done by six years of total Repubican control. You can have one or the other, but not both, because impeachment would make it difficult for Congress to do any REAL work, unfortunately.

[truedelphi]

67. I'll repeat what others are saying

At the *beginning* of the Nixon impeachment hearings, there were not anywhere near the votes needed to impeach

But the evidence came out, and then the Repubicans showed themselves to have enough honor to join the Democrats in agreeing to oust Nixon, if he would not resign first.

[rucky]

73. Once it's on the table, the people will speak up.

We've been calling for it for years, but I think most folks won't even consider telling their congress-critter how they feel until there's something drafted.

[emcguffie]

52. Seems to me it could be considered an impeachable offense --

-- for our elected reps to refuse to take it on.

If the decider refuses to pay any attention to what the american people want, and our elected reps, likewise, refuse to pay attention to what we want regarding impeaching the decider, then they are both in a way guilty of the same thing.

Of course, in degree there cannot be any comparison. But it is the same offense, isn't it?

I suppose I could be wrong in that there may not be 70 percent support for impeachment. It is probably not too far off, though.

[magellan]

53. The Dems are not going there

Depressingly, I saw Congressman Conyers on DN! this morning, explaining his "We can fire him!" remark about Bush** at the protest last month. It was not a reversal of "impeachment is off the table". Here's the relevant portion of the conversation with Amy Goodman:

AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Conyers in Washington, D.C. Are you calling for President Bush's impeachment, Congressmember Conyers?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: The reason I am not, notwithstanding my fiery rhetoric at the rally, which I thought was quite appropriate, by the way, and I don't retract, we're firing -- on November 7, we fired all the Republicans we could find that are supporting President Bush. Next year in November, we're going to get hired to do the job of leading this country with a Democratic president and with a stronger House and Senate majority. You know, a one-senate majority lead is not much of a majority. Fifteen-vote change in the House would erase the advantage that we have. And quite frankly, any impeachment proceeding that would go forward without taking out the Vice President and the President, to me, would be a waste of time. We don't have the luxury to impeach this president and this vice president. We have the responsibility to stop the war in Iraq, and I think it's proceeding along sound lines, and then we will be able to deal with Katrina, the domestic under-funding of everything from healthcare to housing to job creation, to re-entry of former felons. All the things that need to be done have to be taken care of. A $2 trillion debt is what we are paying to stay in Iraq. We've got to stop that financial hemorrhaging as a first responsibility in the Congress.

snip...

REP. JOHN CONYERS: No. But impeachments come to the Judiciary Committee. And, believe me, to tie up this government just as we're trying to stop the war and the clock is running on both the President and Vice President, I think would be a mistaken strategy. We've got to win the next election, which is next year.

Basically they've got too much to do and the next election is too important.

I nearly flew at my TV set.

[BlueStater]

56. So standing up for the Constituion is optional according to the Dems

:puke:

[magellan]

76. Apparently so

And I'm just as sick over it as you. Failing to hold them accountable will only embolden others to do worse while in office. And there are plenty waiting in the wings to try it out.

This means absolutely horrible things for the future. Government will only become more of a cesspool than it already is.

I know who I'll be blaming.

[focusfan]

55. i agree with you 100%

he should be impeached and i hope soon

[ooglymoogly]

57. amen!!! nt

[rambler_american]

59. Yes!

What you said.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. No. We run into this without planning and we guarantee it fails

Impeachment is a serious issue. It deserves to be done the right way.

[MasonJar]

63. Please give them time. The dems have been in control for 5 or 6

weeks and they've accomplished a lot. Let them continue their investigations; let the people demand impeachment after they hear the facts. The dems really control the Senate nominally. When the Senate impeaches Bush/Cheney, they should go down. No president has been eliminated from impeachment processes. Oh, please let Bush/Cheney be the first, Lord.

[In Truth We Trust]

64. There is no time like the present. The Constitution demands it. Impeach NOW!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

65. Absolutely!

I have already written my senators and representative expressing this very sentiment. I don't care if it ends up getting voted on or not. I want the machinery of the Congress to start spinning toward impeachement. Maybe, just maybe, we'd get his attention and cause him to slow down.....in either case, it will express how we feel about him in a much meore effective manner than writing letters to the editor or kvetching here on DU....... :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

68. Of course, I agree. If he is not impeached by the House, then our laws mean nothing.

And you are correct, it matters not whether there would be enough votes in the Senate to remove him from office, the House must impeach this miserable, lying, murderous criminal...or our laws mean nothing at all.

:thumbsup:

[Vidar]

69. I agree. Impeachment puts the whole bunch on trial in public

for enabling their indefensible idol.

[WillyT]

70. It Really Is The Only Way To Stop World War III !!!

There isn't enough time to let the public "figure it out for themselves". Once the bombs start dropping on Iran, it's game, set, and match.

The public got it (stop it now), voted for it (stop it right now), and now the Democrats have got to make it happen. Even if that means we have to Impeach and give a civics lesson at the same time.

Almost everyone of those rePuke Fascist Fucks stated this week, that they agree with Shrub that this is a generational, apocalyptic fight for our very survival. I agree. But not in what they believe...

I believe in my heart of hearts, that the America we all love and cherish, will be forever damaged beyond all repair if we let these idiots take us down the road they so want to go.

Impeachment now, has become the ONLY option.

Good luck all.

:grouphug:

[goclark]

71. I agree ~ IMPEACH NOW!

[NYC]

72. Impeachment now, has become the ONLY option.

I fully agree with you, Willy T. :hi:

Best of luck to all of us.

[Individualist]

75. Exactly

Anyone who is paying any attention at all knows there is no time for baby steps. Once the cabal attacks Iran, all hell will break loose. People who are playing nice with the neocons will find it blowing up in their faces.

[fooj]

74. Well said.

:toast:

[WinkyDink]

77. And who's to say, after we get out the evidence, that more votes won't be

forthcoming?

[lyonn]

81. Imagine impeachment proceeding with all those subpoenas

being handed out, and then, imagine all those arrogant dirt bags having to testify under oath. This must be done to get the truth out. Not some opinions by reporters and all the media. We want the truth and the best way is with an impeachment proceeding.

Like so many have said, We don't have much time. Remember how much damage bush can do in one year so imagine 2 more years of no one restraining him. He and Cheney brag about how they intend to make all the Decisions. That scares me.

[OnyxCollie]

79. The clock is ticking.

Impeachment needs to happen, but investigations must be conducted first. The public, aided by a complicit media, hardly know the true depth of bushco's crimes. The investigations will provide the evidence that even the spoon-fed dullards can understand.

However, there are the time factors:

Chimpy's next two years in office (theoretically)- There is a lot to be covered in the next two years. While the House has accomplished much in the first 100 hours (sidelining the republics much to their chagrin), IMO I do not believe the investigations will move nearly as quickly.

War with Iran- We are already seeing the bullshit pile up as rationale for bushco's war with Iran. Supplying bombs, sending fighters, the nuclear program- it's aluminum tubes and yellow cake all over again. Darth claims he's unstoppable and Chimpy remains oblivious. We have learned that the IWR was intended for all of the mideast, and given the neocons' desire to (further) enrich their offshore bank accounts regardless of the destruction it causes, it seems unlikely they will let Iran out of their sights.

The next terror attack/military confrontation- 9/11 worked so beautifully as a catalyst, why wouldn't they try it again? It frightens the populace, makes them compliant. It also helps to distract from any important business. If a terror attack happened tomorrow, what would be the response (by republics and some dems looking to ride the wave to reelection)?

"Now is not the time to play the blame game."

"That's old ground. We need to move on."

"BAD MEN WANT TO KILL YOU!!!"

How do you think this scenario would affect impeachment hearings (and the '08 election) if we still aren't sure we have the votes?

Now, I would like to see everyone in this administration impeached, tried, and convicted. But investigations are needed. Quickly.

[rwj]

82. I have a good reason for impeachment

I'm a newbie who thinks he has discovered another good reason for impeachment. I'm replying to some threads so I can post my first thread on this subject

[calimary]

83. Excellent. All good reasons welcome.

It's also important that IMPEACHMENT, ITSELF, be rehabilitated.

It's been cheapened and perverted by being squandered on Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.IMPEACHMENT is supposed to be an ultra-serious, carefully considered penalty not quickly or capriciously entered into, not a cheap-ass, petty, vindictive political gotcha. It's supposed to mean something EXTREMELY significant, HISTORICALLY significant, as a penalty. And it's been made a farce, a completely pathetic and tragic joke. It means NOTHING anymore, except something to be smirked and sneered and scoffed at. The republi-CONS utterly bastardized it. It's been thoroughly and catastrophically disgraced. It needs to be rehabilitated, rather urgently.

After being cheapened and rendered a complete joke over a frickin' blowjob, it needs to be applied in the most solemn, serious way possible - as a penalty for LYING ABOUT SENDING US TO WAR. LYING AND COVERING UP TREASONOUS OFFENSES. Some genuinely serious stuff, not some cheap, petty, sore-loser, snot-nose, piss-ant partisan crap. It needs to be applied to something DEADLY serious. It needs to be applied to something that really counts. So that it, too, will really count, once again.

[rwj]

86. I 'm a newbie and I click on wrong button

I'm inviting you to read message 84 (I think it could be important) If I could just prove my theory which is conveyed on my personal webpage http://www.geocities.com/jackson_robert58/patoffice.html

[tblue]

88. Welcome to DU!!!

[rwj]

84. Here's my reason for impeachment

I think the integrity of the patent office and justice department have been compromised thru political appointees. One example: This person is in charge of civil rights,human resources, and "corporate services" at the patent office(note:the close ties to George Bush for well over 20 years) http://www.uspto.gov/biographies/bio_meadows.htm another interesting bio is for the Deputy Director of the Patent Office(note:the role he played in the attempted impeachment of then President Clinton) http://www.uspto.gov/biographies/bio_pinkos.htm You can view my own views on this issue at http://www.geocities.com/jackson_robert58/patoffice.html I also believe that Martha Stewart was prosecuted because she was a heavy contributor to the democratic party.

[The Traveler]

85. Reluctantly, I agree

I hate the crap that will be stirred up by it. In a real sense, it is a waste of effort.

But we spent 75 million bucks investigating Clinton and all they came up with was a blow job. Let's spend the same money. The investigators will come up with a lot more. And thus the rotten tooth may be pulled, before it completely poisons the body.

Yep. It has to be done. We have to go forward with this, if only so the lies are exposed and the truth is known.