home

Discussing Impeachment

Matt Yglesias writes:

With sentiment on the question of impeaching Bush running at a pretty strong 39 percent for giving him the boot (with 49 percent opposed), I think this needs to enter the mainstream conversation. . . . The fact remains, however, that impeaching and convicting Bush means, in practice, only that Dick Cheney becomes President. . . . Removing Bush doesn't accomplish anything. I suppose you could impeach Cheney, and then impeach Bush before confirming a new vice president, and then Nancy Pelosi becomes president. And that, of course, is going to get 67 votes in the Senate sometime after they establish congressional representation for flying pigs.

So it's never going to happen. But Yglesias says:

You're still left with the problem that this is only getting the requisite votes in fantasyland, but I think it's a perfectly cogent political agenda.

This confuses me. How is a political agenda whose chance for success resides in fantasyland be cogent? More.

This can only be true if Matt believes that Impeachment withoput removal is a cogent political agenda. And yet, his entire discusssion seems to demonstrate an opposite belief.

However, then new impeachment craze HAS begun to embraced "impeachment with no removal" as its own reward. At bottom, what I fear is behind the psyche of the new impeachment craze is this type of thinking:

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing Democrats afraid of impeachment claim that it can't be done because the Senate, where Democrats hold a precarious one-seat edge, would never vote to convict and remove, which would require 67 votes.

Let's get something straight:

Impeachment is not about conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is a stand-alone action of the House of Representatives, and requires a simple majority.

Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.

When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment.  Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.

The most ironic and humorous part of that diary to me is the end:

DAVE LINDORFF is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of  "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now out in a paperback edition).

"The Legal Argument for Removing President George Bush." I guess impeachment USED to be about removal, until it wasn't.

Interestingly, the history of impeachment and removal from office is quite clear that impeachment is not a stand alone punishment. Start with the Constitution:

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Impeachment is clearly not a stand-alone punishment or remedy. It is a political indictment to be tried for the purposes of determining whether removal of federal officers should occur.

The Constitutional Debates on the subkect also demonstrate this:

The Framers' Debates on the Impeachment Provisions (from the notes of James Madison, taken at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787):

Saturday, June 2

Mr. Dickenson moved "that the Executive be made removeable bv the National Legislature on the request of a
rnajority of the Legislatures of individual States." It was necessary he said to place the power of removing

somewhere.  He did not like the plan of impeaching the Great officers of State.  He did not know how provision

could be made for removal of them in a better mode than that which he had proposed.  He had no idea of abolishing

the State Governments as some gentlemen seemed inclined to do. The happiness of this Country in his opinion

required considerable powers to be left in the hands of the States.

Mr.  Bedford seconded the motion.

Mr.  Sherman contended that the National Legislature should have power to remove the Executive at pleasure.

Mr.  Mason.  Some mode of displacing an unfit magistrate is rendered indispensable by the fallibility of those who
choose, as well as by the corruptibility of the man chosen . He opposed decidedly the making the Executive the

mere creature of the Legislature as a violation of the fundamental principle of good Government.

Mr.  Madison & Mr. Wilson observed that it would leave an equality of agency in the small with the great States;
that it would enable a minority of the people to prevent ye. removal of an officer who had rendered himself justlv

criminal in the eyes of a majority; that it would open a door for intrigues agst. him in States where his

administration tho' just might be unpopular, and might tempt him to pay court to particular States whose leading

parfizans he might fear, or wish to engage as his partisans.  They both thought it bad policy to introduce such a

mixture of the State authorities, where their agency could be otherwise supplied. . .

. . . On Mr. Dickenson's motion for making Executive removeable by Natl.; Legislature at request of majority of
State Legislatures was also rejected--all the States being in the negative Except Delaware which gave an

affirmative vote.

Friday, July 20

"to be removeable on impeachment and conviction for mal practice or neglect of duty." see Resol: 9

Mr.  Pinkney & Mr. Govr.  Morris moved to strike out this part of the Resolution.  Mr. P. observd. he ought not to
be impeachable whilst in office

Mr.  Davie.  If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself
re-elected.  He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.

Mr. Wilson concurred in the necessity of making the Executive impeachable whilst in office.

Mr. Govr.  Morris.  He can do no criminal act without Coadjutors who mav be punished.  In case he should be
re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence.  Besides who is to impeach?  Is the impeachment to

suspend his functions.  If it is not the mischief will go on.  If it is the impeachment will be nearly equivalent to a

displacement, and will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach

Col.  Mason.  No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued.  Shall any
man be above justice?  Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injusfice?  When

great crimes were committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the Coadjutors.  There had been much

debate & difficulty as to the mode of chusing the Executive.  He approved of that which had been adopted at first,

namely of referring the appointment to the Natl.  Legislature.  One objection agst.  Electors was the danger of their

being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office.

Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be

suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?

Docr.  Franklin was for retaining the clause as favorable to the Executive.  History furnishes one example only of
a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice.  Every body cried out agst. this as unconstitutional.

What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious?  Whv recourse

was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his

character.  It wd. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the

Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.

"HONORABLE acquittal" said Franklin! That is what impeachment without removal is. It is NOT a punishment onto itself.

There has come a point now where impeachment proponents will say anything to forward their obsession. Nothing matter now to them but that impeachment be deemed a serious option.

This species of impeachment supporter does harm to the progressive cause.

< Team Libby Adds Another Lawyer | NH Blocks Real ID >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "impeachment with no removal" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    as its own punishment [with] Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process

    Sounds a hell of a lot like felony conviction... without any sentence to serve.

    Scooter Libby is probably on board with the concept.

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    I actually commented in that diary. I thought it was crap, along with most of the comments. Diaries like that are now just preaching to the choir, or the 'impeachniks', as you call them. They persuade no one.

    The choir is loud and self-righteous. n/t (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:22:11 PM EST
    Just like here (none / 0) (#32)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:41:49 PM EST
    Not self righteous (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:45:24 PM EST
    Just loud.

    Parent
    My favorite part was the (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    inaccurate claiming of Ben Franklin  as supporting the view of the diary. When Franklin said exactly the opposite.

    The other favorite part was the title of the book that the diarist has written.

    Seriously though, facts are no longer part of the discussion with a certain species of impeachment proponent, those I call impeachniks.

    Even now another FP post whose hidden agenda is impeachment is trafficking in mendaciousness.

    Parent

    Leaving aside (none / 0) (#28)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    any so-called "hidden agenda", I don't see anything wrong with writing about the possible legal issues with the use of the subpoena power.  

    Parent
    Did you see a discussion of the legal issues? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:12:06 PM EST
    Or did you see a REJECTION of the legal process?

    I saw the latter.

    The hidden agenda is transparent to me. It should put "hidden" in quotes.  

    I have not looked at the hread. Is the reaction NOT "impeachment is the only way?"

    I'll apologize to to all if it is not.

    Parent

    A question for you (none / 0) (#55)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    Can the president invoke executive privilege to avoid having his underlings testify at an impeachment hearing? I.e. do the same executive privileges exist wrt to impeachment hearings as wrt congressional hearings?

    Parent
    A court will decide the issue (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:31:37 PM EST
    as it should.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#71)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:36:54 PM EST
    is there any existing law on the subject?

    The reason I ask is because one of the planks of the 'impeachnik' platform is that impeachment hearings will bring out all the evidence needed to make Bush look like such a monster that those 17 GOP Senators will have no choice but to vote for removal.

    But it seems to me that the WH can stonewall those hearings just as much as they are stonewalling current congressional hearings, as KagroX writes about. So how, then, can impeachment be a remedy for the original stonewalling, especially if the courts rule in Bush's favor, as KagroX cynically suggests they will do?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    There is plenty of law on claims of executive privilege.

    Parent
    Are there specific differences (none / 0) (#75)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:39:37 PM EST
    between how it works in impeachment hearings versus other congressional hearings? Or is it safe to say that the same rules apply to both, whatever they are?

    Parent
    there are no Court cases on that (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:45:15 PM EST
    I know that is the common claim

    The Congress, Fred Thompson in particualr when he was a Senator, have claimed there is not executive privilege or attorney client privilege that the Congress must recognize period, not just in impeachment settings.

    There are claims that impeachment hearings do not permit claims of executive privilege.

    These are mere claims. They have never been tested.

    Again, as is always the case, we must rely on the Courts or the power of impeachment or removal when it comes to claims of privilege before the Congress, including claims of executive privilege.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#84)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:51:59 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    I'm writing something on this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:54:22 PM EST
    I'll publish it tomorrow with all the details and cites for you.

    Honestly, I am going to pin a tail on dkos on this issue.


    Parent

    I'm looking forward to it (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    And I'll be on my best behavior. No profanity.

    Parent
    I don't judge the value of someone's writing (none / 0) (#60)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:27:32 PM EST
    by the reaction of commenters.  For the first three years I was at dKos I seldom read ANY comments. (I should go back to that policy, come to think of it.)

    I also don't think the agenda is hidden - everybody knows he's for impeachment.  That doesn't necessarily negate his analysis of possible pitfalls in the use of the subpoena power and possible ways around problems. Sure, he's looking at a worst-case scenario but it's not like he hasn't posited a solution (and not impeachment).

    Discussion of the legal issues?  In comments?  How many legal posts have you written here that have had a discussion of the legal issues in the comments?

    Parent

    I am in the process (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    of writing a piece on the subject.

    You will find that this discussion in that post is at best disingenuous, more accurately, dishonest.

    Parent

    Good (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:38:16 PM EST
    I look forward to it. I've been waiting for someone else to write about it.

    And we'll see how much legal analysis discussion you get in the comments here (and we won't count me).

    But ... don't rush to finish on my account because real life is calling me ... ;)

    Parent

    Impeachment without removal? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:25:05 PM EST
    If they want to advocate for something useful they could advocate for the return of vice-presidential duels.  Ben Franklin wouldn't approve of that either but at least the odds of having a result would increase to 50-50.

    You're saying you want (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    a Gore-Cheney shootout?

    Parent
    Andgarden, I'm shocked (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    that you don't know your history.  

    It would have to be Henry Paulson.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:31:23 PM EST
    No, Paul O'Neill.

    Parent
    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    Actually Bob Rubin come to think of it.

    Sirota would be pleased . . .

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    I was mistaken, Hamilton was a former ...

    Parent
    It's a new world (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    and we'll create our own history!

    Parent
    No profanity please (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:33:18 PM EST


    Oh sorry (none / 0) (#41)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:54:36 PM EST
    I forgot. You can change it to 'nonsense' if you want.

    Parent
    Or, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by HeadScratcher on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:45:57 PM EST
    They (and the impeachment supporters) can cut off funding the war and then work on helping the poor and less fortunate in our society.

    Sounds like a plan (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:13:02 PM EST
    At Best The Thinking (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    Of a six year oid. At worst part of a Rove strategy for continual permanent Repulican control of all three branches of the US government.

    It is a honey trap.  Wake up.

    Impeachment is Crack (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:52:37 PM EST
    blah, blah, blah (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:25:34 PM EST
    I think you are simply fomenting needless discord, unless you think this impeachment 'craze' is actually going to lead to congressional action. It's not, of course--only the Stupid GOP would and did impeach a chief exec bound to be acquitted--so I think what you are objecting to is not that Bush might be impeached and aquitted, but to the fact that there are people who disagree with you strongly about something.

    Example: the pointless fight in Life of Brian over who gets to kidnap Pilate's wife.

    Focus on things that matter, not this. If a time comes when Bush can be ousted after impeachment, then Ms. Pelosi may become receptive to the notion, or rather forced by popular demand and sufficient fear in the 'Republicans'. Till then, none of this matters enough to sow discord on account of it. Let people have their opinions in peace.

    It is going to preclude (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:35:48 PM EST
    effective action from the progressive base on ending the IRaq Debacle.

    I wonder if you have read me on this at all.

    Parent

    Let people have their opinions in peace. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:33:13 PM EST
    Except the opinion that impeachment movements are idiotic wasters of time and energy that can be better channeled to end the debacle in Iraq?

    Parent
    With a Democratic Party... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:40:27 PM EST
    ...that doesn't possess the slightest hint of imaginative ability, that cannot, for anything, think outside of the box, I simply don't expect anything to be done, period.  There is simply NO leadership in the party.  Nada.  Nothing.  No one.

    Every day, the Democratic Party sinks further into its self-imposed slump, like a writer afraid to write the truth for fear of what it will require him to face and confront in himself, and the vitriol and lack of popularity from others.

    It is a simple fear of failure magnified into a murderous inferno under the looking glass.

    Through Christopher Dodd is trying... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    ...and his work is to be praised.  But he doesn't possess the creative chops or, obviously, party help necessary to get it done.

    Parent
    Sigh...it SAYS (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:08:07 AM EST
    It wd. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the

    Executive WHERE HIS MISCONDUCT SHOULD DESERVE IT, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be UNJUSTLY ACCUSED.

    No one, but no one, is UNJUSTLY ACCUSING bush or cheney or any of that administration.

    That is precisely why we will have an impeachment process.  To begin to repair the depravities inflicted upon this GREAT nation by this administration.

    We won;thave it (none / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:24:27 PM EST
    number one.

    Number 2, acquittal is acquittal. You can call it what you like.

    Parent

    Here's a copout (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:02:25 PM EST
    from Steve Benen:

    Are there 67 votes in the Senate for removing Bush from office? Almost certainly not, a fact that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. For that matter, the prospect of a President Cheney is, shall we say, disconcerting.

    But given the circumstances, there's no reason to dismiss the notion as some radical flight of fancy. Reasonable people, debating in good faith, can disagree about the utility, implications, and grounds for impeachment, but as Yglesias put it, the concept should probably "enter the mainstream conversation."

    Um, so it is in the conversation. What's your view on it? It is a radical flight of fancy to think it will lead to removal, as he accepts. So given that, now what Steve?

    I think these types of copout posts are the worst of the lot really.

    The green light (none / 0) (#94)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:19:35 PM EST
    "So we beat on, boats against the current..."

    Parent
    I don't get your comment (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    Doomed struggle for an idealistic goal (none / 0) (#113)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:50:45 PM EST
    Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And then one fine morning--

    So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.



    Parent
    Like (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    beating the drum for impeachment with no enforcement teeth?

    Parent
    Heh, kinda (none / 0) (#125)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:06:19 PM EST
    But much more like trying to hold back the tide of righteous anger demanding impeachment.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:01:55 PM EST
    It's been a while and I have no strong recollections regarding Gatsby.

    Parent
    Polemic with Daily Kos (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    "Right now, Dkos is as credible as DU on impeachment, which mean utterly not credible."

    If they have no credibility, why are you constantly arguing against them here?

    "I am raging because THIS WEEK Iraq funding comes back on the agenda and impeachniks will be working AGAINST the NOT funding proposal for ending the Debacle."

    Are you here making ad hominem arguments specific individuals that oppose defunding?  In and of itself, impeachment does not preclude defunding.  Why not just argue in favor of defunding?  Otherwise, you stand in danger of losing your own credibility.

    Um (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:29:26 PM EST
    Why are you here arguing with me? If all you say about me is true?

    These are the silliest comments of all.

    Parent

    Don't be afraid of questions (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:35:03 PM EST
    I really didn't say anything at all about you, just asked you questions.  The fact that you choose not to answer them says much more about you.  

    Parent
    He asked you one. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:38:09 PM EST
    The fact that you choose not to answer it says much more about you.

    Parent
    I thought my answer was obvious. (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:41:38 PM EST
    Nor am I arguing with Big Tent Democrat, just asking him questions.

    Parent
    When did you (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:45:36 PM EST
    become an impeachnik troll?

    Just asking a question.


    Parent

    How do you define impeachnik troll? (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:48:15 PM EST
    ... 'Cause I don't think I am one.

    Parent
    That;s no answer (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    In honor of you, I assumed facts not in evidence, as you did with me in your first comment, and DEMAND you answer my question, unfair as it is.

    Look, try starting over if you are serious and withdraw your first comment which is insulting and infuriating.

    You want me to delete it so we can start over? Or do you want to pretend you did not intend to insult me?

    Parent

    It is an answer ... (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:56:19 PM EST
    ... but thank you for admitting that you assumed facts not in evidence.  Too bad you could not do that without implying that I have done the same.

    I do not want you to delete anything.  I just asked some questions of you.  Again, sorry if you find my questions insulting but they are not meant to be insulting.

    Now, exactly Which comment do you want me to withdraw?

    Parent

    Goo d night (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:00:48 PM EST
    I am done with this discussion.

    Parent
    Again ... (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:07:26 PM EST
    ... sorry that you are insulted, that was not my intent.

    Parent
    It must be (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:09:11 PM EST
    as you will not withdraw what I find offensive, even in order to forward the conversation.

    Parent
    If I understand you correctly ... (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    I think you want me to withdraw a premise that I do not hold.  You seem to presume that my questions were wholly rhetorical but they were genuine questions.

    Parent
    You flatly ignored his request (none / 0) (#133)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    here:
    Look, try starting over if you are serious and withdraw your first comment which is insulting and infuriating.
    and in reply to his request you asked him which comment he asked you to withdraw:
    Now, exactly Which comment do you want me to withdraw?

    You are not here for serious discussion. You are trolling, IMO.


    Parent

    But I am here for serious discussion ... (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:45:45 PM EST
    I have repeatedly tried to disabuse Big Tent Democrat of his misinterpretations of my questions as insulting assertions.  I have repeatedly apologized.  His view that I am insulting him are based on his own misinterpretation of what I said.  I don't think the same could be said of some of his posts.  Far from trolling, I would actually like to keep the quality of discussion here above that of mere polemics.  In my opinion the best way to do this is to question some of our common assumptions.  This is what I mean by basic questions.

    Parent
    Now you ignored my comment. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:49:55 PM EST
    You are a troll. Nothing more.

    Parent
    What did I ignore? (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    I took your advice (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    Not arguing with people with no credibility.

    Parent
    Sorry ... (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:42:33 PM EST
    ... but insults only harm your credibility, not mine.

    Parent
    Oh boy (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    I guess your insults of me improve your credibility.

    You did not notice I am mimicking you.

    You sound familair to me though.

    I think we have had this very conversation before.

    You believe it is ok for your to insult but not ok to be insulted back.

    Enjoy your stay.

    Parent

    When did I insult you? (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:45:30 PM EST
    Do you answer questions? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:47:37 PM EST
    Are you here making ad hominem arguments specific individuals that oppose defunding?  In and of itself, impeachment does not preclude defunding.  Why not just argue in favor of defunding?  Otherwise, you stand in danger of losing your own credibility.

    That was quite insulting. How could you not see that? Are you an impeachnik troll?

    Just asking questions.

    Parent

    Sorry you find those questions insulting (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:50:49 PM EST
    They were not meant to be insulting, although they did betray some irritation.  I promise you I am genuinely interested in your answers to these questions.

    Parent
    Those questions are insults (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:54:21 PM EST
    and assume facts not in evidence.

    Try starting over. For example, if you accuse me of engaging in an ad hominem attack, provide your evidence. I am positive I did not in my post.

    Your entire premise is insulting and false.

     

    Parent

    But I made no accusation ... (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    ... I merely asked if you are arguing against specific people.

    Parent
    Some people say . . ? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    Honestly, excuse me, dishonestly, in your case, you have shown your colors.

    Either that or you really are not very bright.

    If you truly do not recognize the offensiveness of your question then I think you are not very bright.

    If you do, then you are dishonest.

    In either case, I am done with this discussion.

    Have a nice night.

    Parent

    I am fairly bright ... (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:03:25 PM EST
    ... and I have been completely honest with you both about my irritation with you as well as my sincerity.  If you change your mind, would still love to hear your answers.

    Parent
    Not tonight (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    My irritation with you makes it impossible.

    Good night.

    Parent

    But why are you so irritated by my questions? (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:09:08 PM EST
    You slyly accuse me of (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:11:43 PM EST
    engaging in ad hominem attacks and question why I engage the impeachniks, suggesting it hurts my credibility.

    Again, you are either doishonest or not bright , IN MY BOOK, if you do not understand how I FEEL about your "questions" (actually insulting assertions of the "some people say" variety).

    I am even more irrtated with you now.

    And I really am done with this now.


    Parent

    Once again, I made no accusation ... (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:26:06 PM EST
    ... just asked some basic questions.  But I did not question why you engaged the "impeachniks," though I am wondering why you do it here so much and not at Daily Kos, especially if you have very specific individuals in mind.  Maybe you do it there also, I really don't know, hence my basic questions.  You feel that my questions are actually insulting assertions.  But they are not.  I don't think all people in favor of impeachment are working against defunding.

    Parent
    David Broder has no credability (none / 0) (#142)
    by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    But we still respond to the idiotic things he writes. Your comment makes no sense.

    Parent
    Taken out of context perhaps (none / 0) (#147)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    But David Broder is a Pulitzer Prize winning Dean of the Washington press corp.  Recall my comment was merely a question.  I know who David Broder is, but I did not know the history of the BTD's differences with DKos.

    Parent
    And Daily Kos is (none / 0) (#150)
    by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:41:31 PM EST
    the largest, most heavily trafficked progressive blog, which has had a tremendous impact on the net roots and Democratic politics. Your comment only cements my argument.

    Parent
    Only if your argument ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by robrecht on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:47:43 PM EST
    ... is now apparently supporting an opposing position that Daily Kos does have credibility.  Still doesn't change the fact that I was aking a genuine question.

    Parent
    Straw man alert (none / 0) (#152)
    by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:25:03 AM EST
    No one said DKos was universally uncredible. Only that they have become uncredible on the issue of impeachment.

    And that not so small detail not with standing, one doesn't need to be credible to have influence. Again, see Broder.

    Parent

    Thanks for the strawman alert (none / 0) (#156)
    by robrecht on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:46:40 AM EST
    But the funny thing about credibility is that you are not the sole judge of who does and who doesn't have it.  Sorry about that.  But it's good that you're now starting to get back to the larger context of my questions.  The question was not just universal credibility vs credibility on impeachment of a whole community, but who specifically are the real opponents targeted with this comment?

    "I am raging because THIS WEEK Iraq funding comes back on the agenda and impeachniks will be working AGAINST the NOT funding proposal for ending the Debacle."

    Who is working against defunding because they favor impeachment?  Assuming this is not a strawman, are they just specific individuals?  

    Because impeachment in and of itself does not necessarily imply working against defunding, eg, General Odom's position.

    Whoever these people are, I now understand that BTD is no longer able to address them directly over at Daily Kos, which I did think would be a more effective level of discussion rather than one degenerating into partisan polemics on separate websites.

    Parent

    It's not a strawman. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    But your question:Who is working against defunding because they favor impeachment?, is.

    His argument has been and continues to be that expending time and energy advocating for impeachment, because it is a hopeless endeavor, takes time and energy away from advocating for defunding.

    Parent

    Whose strawman? (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by robrecht on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    It sounds like you're inadvertantly accusing BTD of creating a strawman.  My question was only directed to his comment:

    "THIS WEEK Iraq funding comes back on the agenda and impeachniks will be working AGAINST the NOT funding proposal for ending the Debacle."

    I have not argued against your brief exposition of BTD's thesis.

    Parent

    An answer: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Naftali on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 04:41:36 PM EST
    "How is a political agenda whose chance for success resides in fantasyland be cogent?"

    The same way that the hardline anti-choice political agenda can be cogent. Or the hardline 'Declare the US a Christian Nation' political agenda.

    Am I missing something? This seems clear.

    So the long term goal (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    is that in 35 years, we will be able to remove Bush from office?

    I have a better idea. Why don't we wait for the 2008 elections.

    It seems clear to me too. It is idiotic, NOT cogent.

    The comparison to the anti-choice movement does not reach facile level, it isa just plain wrong.

    Parent

    Re: Am I missing something? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    Yes. It's a waste of time.

    Parent
    Sadly (none / 0) (#153)
    by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:25:55 AM EST
    Both of those have a much more realistic chance of succeeding.

    Parent
    ÉCRASEZ L'INFAME (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sumner on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    This gets my dander up. Impeachment hearings will reveal what all the parties have been up to!

    Government as managed by this administration uses virtual total surveillance, yet preserves for itself virtual total secrecy:

    Arcanum - the Sovereign Remedy. Secretive, hidden; dissemblance. Said to be the secret knowledge of alchemists in the making of gold.

    And recent court decisions will spawn a whole new generation of spy gear.

    And it's not just the surveillance, it's also the operations.

    If we look at history and ask how elites have maintained their dominance what we see is that they used the power of the state to do so. It is through law and regulation that persistent aristocracies are created and maintained...

    ~~ thought mesh

    David Bowie, This Is Not America. BBC concert, 2000 - YouTube

    When The President Talks To God, Bright Eyes - YouTube

    We have hearings already (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    Why on earth do you think impeachment hearings will be any different?

    Parent
    Scooter Libby gets my dander up. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    Especially when there is no punishment consequent to his conviction.

    Bush has committed far worse crimes.

    Parent

    Dander does not remvoe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    Bush.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    what you need is clairol herbal essences shampoo!

    Parent
    Hahaha (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    Good move. An injection of laughter helped. Thanks.

    Parent
    Or a Good Depilatory Agent (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:45:01 PM EST
    Preferebly secret

    Parent
    Question: (none / 0) (#154)
    by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:28:50 AM EST
    Since I'm pretty sure you'll know the answer to this: someone told me that impeachment investigations will have different results from the ones already on-going because claims of executive privilege can't be used in an impeachment inquire. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, but I'd like to know for sure.

    Parent
    Bush can try. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:19:40 AM EST
    ...there was a system in the White House that automatically recorded everything in the Oval Office. The shocking revelation radically transformed the Watergate investigation. The tapes were soon subpoenaed by first special prosecutor Archibald Cox and then the Senate, as they might prove whether Nixon or Dean was telling the truth about key meetings. Nixon refused, citing the principle of executive privilege, and ordered Cox, via Attorney General Richardson, to drop his subpoena.
    ...
    Cox's refusal to drop his subpoena led to the "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20, 1973, when Nixon compelled the resignations of Richardson and then his deputy William Ruckelshaus in a search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox. This search ended with Solicitor General Robert Bork, and the new acting department head dismissed the special prosecutor. Public reaction was immediate and intense
    Watergate

    Parent
    Simple (none / 0) (#6)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:11:29 PM EST
    Removal isn't a realistic option. Impeachment alone is all that can realistically be done, and it SHOULD be done to express the people's condemnation of the criminal actions taken by this executive.

    There's no requirement for removal to follow impeachment - it's just another example of the Framers' design of separating and pitting of powers against one another to restrain government.

    Every crime can't be appropriately punished to the proper extent - ask Fitzgerald. Does that mean you don't do what you can within the powers you have?

    "Honorable acquittal" won't be what results from impeachment hearings that bring all the ugly facts on Bushco out into the glare of publicity, in a venue where they'll be much more difficult for WH spokesbots to spin them away.

    Thanks for pointing out that diary. I've recommended it.

    Simply ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    What you want is CENSURE, not impeachment.

    Impeachment is part of the REMOVAL process.

    Please point out to the recommended diarist that his is lying about what Ben Franklin said about impeachment without removal.

    What you and he are advocating for is something Franklin called "HONORABLE acquittal."

    Well done.

    Parent

    Censure = mild rebuke (none / 0) (#33)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    At least impeachment has teeth, even if by the current makeup of the Senate they can't be sunk in.

    Parent
    I Always Thought That (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    Having "teeth" meant would preclude teeth that can't be sunk in. Usually "having teeth" means that your opponents will have fear of you.

    When your opponents are laughing it usually means that you have "no teeth". I think that is the case here. We have "teeth" for defunding and it is clear that Bush is afraid of us using them for fear that they will sink in.



    Parent

    The metaphysics of "have" (none / 0) (#91)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    Almost as good as the metaphysics of what "is" is.

    Let's not go there.

    Parent

    Hardly (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:23:54 PM EST
    Metaphysical.

    Having teeth and being toothless are mutually exclusive terms.

    Parent

    Is having in potential (none / 0) (#98)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    without the potential to use still having?

    Toothless means lacking teeth. But the teeth are there in their constitutionally mandated powers. They're simply restrained by a contingent factor, namely the current numerical makeup of the senate.

    Pointless discussion. Let's not have it.

    Parent

    Jeez (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:48:39 PM EST
    You sound like you are spinning out. No wonder you are confused about our power to Impeach the President and the power to defund the war.

    It is not that complex.  

    Parent

    :: rolling eyes :: (none / 0) (#124)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:03:31 PM EST
    Whatever squeaky.

    Parent
    What :::teeth:::? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    How many repugs are going to vote for it? F*ck.

    Parent
    The teeth we don't have the votes to use (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    Censure is easier because it's meaningless. THAT Bush will laugh at.

    Parent
    Heh! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    Those are the kind of teeth you put in a glass of water on the nightstand at bedtime!!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Censure means a lot more (none / 0) (#145)
    by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    Then impeachment at this point.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    Ok. Whatever.

    Parent
    Teeth? What teeth (none / 0) (#144)
    by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:01:07 PM EST
    It is about as toothless as you can get right now

    Parent
    The people's condemnation (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    is expressed, and has been for a long time.

    The "people" would like to see some accountability, not just empty words.

    Empty words is what they've been getting from repubs for seven years, and would play right into Bush and Rove's hands.

    Great example to want to follow.

    Bush and Rove would much rather have people wasting time debating and trying to pass a censure motion or waste time trying to garner support in Congress for impeachment. It would be nice to see, but it is not going to happen.

    And unfortunately, since there is no way in hell that there will ever be enough votes in Congress for impeachment, Bush and Rove would love to have and will encourage the country debating it's merits and pressing for it, while he continues the occupation of Iraq and quite possibly attacks Iran.

    Defunding and ending the Iraq occupation and stopping the death has to take precedence over either censure or impeachment.

    Parent

    Let them have censure (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    for posterity if they like.


    Parent
    Sure. If it makes them feel good. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:24:45 PM EST
    At least it wouldn't be as much of an utter waste of time as impeachment proceedings.

    I'm going to go bang my head on the wall for awhile.

    I'll let you know if it feels good, ok? :-)

    Parent

    It's got to be formalized (none / 0) (#35)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    Approval rates are ephemeral. Formal condemnation has historical weight, and censure isn't enough.

    Parent
    Honorable acquittal (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    is what you seem to want.

    Parent
    I want (none / 0) (#72)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:37:19 PM EST
    impeachment AND removal, but only half the pie is possible, so I'll go with half the pie.

    Actually, impeaching but then refusing to move to trial in the Senate would drive the wingnuts bonkers. It would leave Bush with the stigma of impeachment and no way to even theoretically clear himself (even if he could, which he couldn't) at trial.

    Parent

    You want to drive them bonkers? (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:43:13 PM EST
    And watch them lose their minds?

    Take away the money to conduct the occupation.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    It would leave them laughing their asses off at the dummies who wasted their time on something as ineffectual as convicting Libby.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:47:47 PM EST
    I must concur with edger here.

    Parent
    Watching the Democrats (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    afraid to not NOT fund the occupation is like watching a guy with a gun standing behind a store counter hand over all his money to the first person who demands it because he's terrified of the power he has, and asking everyone else to censure the robber.

    But don't offend him by arresting him.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#17)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    "Honorable acquittal" won't be what results from impeachment hearings that bring all the ugly facts on Bushco out into the glare of publicity, in a venue where they'll be much more difficult for WH spokesbots to spin them away.

    If you want to talk about flying pigs, imagine a scenario in which Americans say "Huh, well, the Republicans predictably voted in lockstep to keep Bush in office - I guess that means those million dead Iraqis were totally worth it! Time to vote for Rudy!"

    I don't give a f*ck about whether it will alienate the mythical swing voter. What I care about is showing the world that we, back in America, have turned the corner. In any other democracy on the planet both the 2000 and 2004 elections would have been overturned, and the architects of this war would have been brought to the Hague long ago. If we let them retire to their comfortable lobbying / wingnut welfare jobs with a slap on the back and a golden watch then we deserve our status as international pariahs because we are a rotten people.

    How about this compromise, BTD. If you're really that damn afraid that the Beltway whining over an impeachment will cost us an election, then we impeach the day after the inauguration. By that time our nation will have the blood of one million dead Iraqis on its hands and someone had better answer for it.

    Parent

    Impeach the day after the inauguration? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    See, you really are no longer making sense.

    Here's what you want by the way, CENSURE.

    Censure Hearings in fact.

    How is that for a compromise.

    I will back censure hearings.

    Who's with me on this Grand Compromise?

    Parent

    I'm in. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    I hereby declare George W. Bush to be censured by me, my son, my mother, my friends, and by all of the people I respect in this world.

    You haven't heard the last of me. I am the one who speaks for the spitit of freedom and decency in you. Sh*t. Somebody has to do it.
    ...
    George W. Bush does not speak for me or my son or my mother or my friends or the people I respect in this world. We didn't vote for these cheap, greedy little killers who speak for America today- and we will not vote for them again in 2002. Or 2004. Or ever. Who does vote for these dishonest sh*theads?
    Link

    OK? Done. Does everybody feel better and self fu*king righteous now?

    What did it accomplish?


    Parent

    Are you asking us to Censure and Move On? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jerry on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    So... It seems you would like us to Censure and Move On, probably to so called "real problems" that "you" feel should have priority such as ending the War in Iraq?

    Hmmph.

    Count me in.

    Parent

    That makes two of us (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    A groundswell is building.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#52)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:15:22 PM EST
    There is precedent for impeaching officials after they've left office. The question of what it means is admittedly open.

    However, I can get behind a censure. Let's roll. :)

    Parent

    There is precedent? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    I can see the reason for it I guess, to disqualify from holding future office.

    Seems rather a futile gesture to me in this case.

    Parent

    I sympathize but (none / 0) (#105)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:42:26 PM EST
    its cart before the horse. More investigation is needed by Waxman and Conyers until a smoking gun turns up. There are very few throw caution to the wind types among politicans and I don't believe the congress will move on impeachment without a smoking gun.

    On the bright side, investigations with public disclosure of what  turns up, smoking gun or not, will drive the GOP crazy. Bush probably won't care, but Snowe, Coleman and the rest who are going to be running in 08 probably will. In turn this might aid BTD's pet project.



    Parent

    I can't believe this conversation. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:30:04 PM EST
    The idea is utter fu*king stupidity, and a complete waste of energy.

    Rove is ROTFFLHFAO at this.

    politics/bedfellows (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sumner on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    "[L]awyers who dispense bad advice about law of armed conflict, and whose advice predictably leads to the death or mistreatment of prisoners, are war criminals" -- United States v. Altstoetter, also called the Reich Justice Ministry case

    At least lawyerly advice not to impeach doesn't rise to that level.

    :)

    You are mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    this is political reality, not legal advice.

    But you are mistaken in bigger ways than that.

    Parent

    I now see it more like a groundswell (none / 0) (#56)
    by Sumner on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    Or like those dikes in Katrina failing to hold in the wake of the rising [read political] storm

    (and I meant the lawyers advising Ms Pelosi)

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    when it spreads past daily kos, let me know.

    Right now, Dkos is as credible as DU on impeachment, which mean utterly not credible.

    I am not raging because I think anything will happen on impeachment. I am positive nothing will happen.

    I am raging because THIS WEEK Iraq funding comes back on the agenda and impeachniks will be working AGAINST the NOT funding proposal for ending the Debacle.

    When they do, I will be condemning them in the strongest terms as Vichy Dems.

    Parent

    Rove Plan (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:42:23 PM EST
    With this sort of timing of impeachmania smacks of having Rove's fingerprints all over it,

    With the logic of picking their battles [un]wisely they will let another opportunity pass do defund the war and fund the withdrawal, a thing that answers what all of us: to check the executive branch's power.

    Going after the impeachment route will weaken us for 08.

    Imagine what heros the dems would be if they stood up to MR 26%.
    They have the power to cut off funding by doing nothing, they all have to stick together.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:35:03 PM EST
    that it shouldn't be allowed to work against the not funding proposal when it comes up. But Webb's will be first up. People can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Parent
    Some people can (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:36:54 PM EST
    Most people, and the impeachniks are such people, can not.

    Parent
    Is there a groundswell (none / 0) (#59)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:26:01 PM EST
    among GOP senators?

    Parent
    Or Dem Congresspersons? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    yup, groundswell (none / 0) (#87)
    by Sumner on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:59:35 PM EST
    I saw "groundswell" in a previous post, I made it my own, and I believe it's the right word.

    You already know some of the methods government uses to control the masses:

    They divide the people and set the factions upon one another
    They scapegoat groups for majorities to attack
    They sow fear
    They run distractions
    They run lines of interference
    They attack where people are obliged to defend
    If we indeed live in an Information Age, then government spies on us, while itself hides secrets.

    We need to learn what they do.
    It will take that to level the playing field.

    Some loudly proclaim that we are a democracy.
    Others shout them down, that no, we are actually a republic.
    And according to Ron Suskind, quoting an "unnamed Administration official", in the New York Times Magazine, October 2004, "We're an empire now".

    They are saying, New Rules!

    Parent

    Um what? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    Impeachment can be a 4-letter word (none / 0) (#47)
    by Gisleson on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:09:41 PM EST
    While I'm not shy about four-letter words, I don't think impeachment has to be one.

    If at no point we stand and say, This is WRONG, we lose our moral authority. Investigating impeachment would, imho, probably lead to the kind of stonewalling that would build support for impeachment. If not, we can stop short, citing any number of reasons for not going through with dire action so close to an election.

    But not to consider impeachment is to lower ourselves to their standards. Impeachment may not be expedient or politically desirable, but crimes have been committed and does anyone think we'll be coming back to those "old" crimes in 2009? I don't, and I don't know if I would ever be comfortable with Cheney and Bush drawing a pension for having turned earth into Hellworld.

    Never say never, and never shy away from the rule of law or its defense.

    This is wrong (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:15:50 PM EST
    I censure the President for his actions.

    As compared to "this is wrong, I indict the President. HE is acquitted."

    "BUSH - This proves that the indictment was wrong. I have been vindicated."

    "Honorable acquittal," in the words of BEn Franklin.

    That seems to be your goal here.

    Parent

    Extreme Danger: Impeachment is Essential (none / 0) (#65)
    by JK on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:32:10 PM EST
    If our founding fathers, or throughout history the good and decent people everywhere, limited their efforts and strategies to just those with a high likelihood of success it would be impossible to imagine the horrible Kafkaesque nightmare that would exist today on every square centimeter of inhabited earth.
     Yet many otherwise reasonable and logical people and pundits ignore what is presently in front of us and set up the false dichotomy that efforts can or should be limited to the few legislative chess matches that would have a high likelihood of passing in a divided partisan Congress. Sticking to limiting the funding (although necessary by itself) will not stop these tyrants who have secreted away many tens of billions of dollars, have massive alternative sources of funding (including if necessary a corner on most of the worlds drug trade, including the biggest poppy harvests (Afghanistan) in history. We have an illegitimate lawless tyrannical government which is a pernicious alliance of "unitary executive" despot wannabes, treasonous Corporations and their executives (providing criminal surveillance, firepower, suppression of dissent, and the secretive selling out of their country etc).
    They have, for now, destroyed the Constitution and put as many traitorous Judges in high places as they could to prevent almost all attempts to restore it. Under false pretense, since Bush became president, obvious, unceasing, extensive, secretive and methodical preparations for absolute tyranny have been a high priority. At the same time they have been usurping as much power and money as possible with existing techniques.
      Marshall law: Through reorganization, contingency government restructuring plans, stealth legislation, executive orders, surveillance, "total information awareness", shadow right wing and corporate paramilitaries, bricks and mortar, and construction of massive detention facilities nationwide among other efforts, even now implementing marshal law (coup) would probably have a decent chance of success (of course this would only be initiated when an individual psychopath thinks it is best). With this extreme, clear and present danger, it is both illogical and dangerous for Congress to use only legislative strategies, whether aimed at de-funding or outlawing what the present regime is doing.
      The criminal Bush regime, the involved members of Congress, their treasonous co-conspirators (including the participating executives and corporations) and other willful accessories must be exposed, removed from power, prosecuted and imprisoned. Repeated failure to do this has, over the last 40 years, caused the current previously unimaginable circumstance. For elected officials to attempt anything less than urgently pursued multiple impeachments, threatens the very existence of our Republic and betrays their solemn oath of office to defend the Constitution against "domestic" enemies (the most powerful, determined and malevolent threat in the history of this country).  
      There must be maximal efforts using the whole spectrum of tools in addition to impeachment. Impeachment should be urgently pursued (and to rob JFK's quote)
    "not because it is easy but because it is difficult"
    ...and critically needed for the survival of this Republic. It must be attempted despite possible political risk even if failure is likely.
    All would be traitors or tyrants, whether individuals, political parties, corporations or any other entities, must know that the American people are hyper-vigilant and would make every effort to stop them, hold them to account, and restore the constitutional prohibitions that strictly limit the actions of the government (including those under color of law).   Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the founding fathers felt very strongly about this. Their writings about preventing tyranny and removing tyrants were voluminous, assertively argued (such as in the "Declaration of Independence") and put into action by way of our Revolutionary War which was as much against corporate tyranny as King George's.  In terms of strategy, simply standing by and losing any hope of getting back our Constitution (or our Republic) would have the greatest chance of success. But this would be the worst course of action.  
    JK


    Removal is necessary? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    Or is a failed impeachment attempt necdessary?

    Does Congress have NO OTHER POWERS to check the Executive?

    I casn not take this comment seriously as it simply ignores the spearation of powers.

    Your point of view would be very dangerous if accepted by the Congress.

    Parent

    Haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:58:35 PM EST
    A failed impeachment attempt is not only necessary but would go down in the history books as the most stinging rebuke that has ever been handed to a sitting president. And Bush will be left crying all the way to January 20, 2009.

    Parent
    Big Tent reply not responsive (none / 0) (#100)
    by JK on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:36:57 PM EST
    Big Tent:
    I presume your response was to my post although that is not recognizable from the contents of your reply.
     You set up a Straw man argument:
     I never said anything remotely similar to that which you appear to respond to.  Specifically, nowhere in the post is there any suggestion that Congress has "NO OTHER POWERS" to check the Executive.
      You state that my post "ignores the separation of powers" when in fact it highlights the separation of powers along with the extreme necessity for Congress to zealously reassert and regain those powers it has ceded to the Bush/Cheney/Corporate crime family.  
      You state that my "point of view would be very dangerous if accepted by Congress" but by the contents of your reply it can only be concluded that you don't know what that point of view is.
     My post makes clear that Congress must use all of its powers "using the whole spectrum of tools in addition to impeachment" and including the power of the purse. Of course!
    Additionally Congress must, among many other steps, require withdrawal from Iraq, restate current law making it a crime to threaten, provoke, or attack Iran. Use its power of regulating the military (including its size) etc. I never implied otherwise.  
    What is clearly dangerous is any delay in pursuing impeachments or in using the impeachment process to expose the criminals and traitors (including the criminal corporations and corporate executives). Impeachments would not have to succeed in order to provider great benefits essentially unattainable otherwise.
    If you can't take the post seriously, pleas explain why. If you learn what the "point of view" is in the post, please explain how it would be dangerous or how delaying impeachment would not be dangerous. I believe you point of view markedly limits options and the spectrum of the separation of powers. Dangerous Indeed!  JK  
     

    Parent
    What is :::so paralyzing::: (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    about the concept of kneecapping Bush by not funding his Iraq occupation?

    Is your obstuction to impeachment (none / 0) (#138)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:59:35 PM EST
    only at this moment in time?  

    Supposedly, your statements over at MyDD reiterated your stance that impeachment at this moment impedes efforts to end the war.

    (3) Impeachment would preclude discussion of of all other issues, most notably Iraq. Indeed, impeachment would be the worst possible development for ending the war in Iraq. It supplants getting out of Iraq as the centerpiece issue for progressive activism.

    See, my disagreement with you at this point is that I do not believe impeachment is such an impediment to this effort.  In fact, impeachment may well aide in the efforts to wrest control of the drifting policies of this administration.

    You have noted there is a basis for impeachment. You do not like substantive impeachment, but the procedural impeachment may have a basis?  Is this a correct analogy of your viewpoint?  "Let's make Bush either back down or face justice."

    My personal bias is that substantive impeachment over political disagreement with the President (i.e., we should not have gone into Iraq) is wrong, while substantive impeachment over Presidential lawbreaking can cleanse and mend the system if it succeeds, and can leave us worse off if we fail by sending the message that what the President did is not a substantive crime.  (That is why people like me are so conerned about whether we have the votes; not because we aren't willing to just make a statement, but because we feel that a failed impeachment makes the wrong statement and actually makes things worse.)

    When it comes to procedural impeachment, I have no such qualms.  Bush admits his crimes against our system of checks and balances, and argues simply that they aren't crimes.  Well, they are crimes.  We can scream it from the rooftops, let it reverberate in ever city, town, and countryside, today and throughout history.  The President cannot do this.  We -- if, as I hope, we stand tall -- will be the party that stood for that principle.

    But the onus is not solely on our leaders; it is also upon us.  We have to speak, but we should speak a language that our leaders will understand, appreciate, and by moved by.  What matters is positive results, and we have to do what is necessary to make them most likely.  Let us convince our leaders of the necessity of this minimalist impeachment agenda, upon which I hope that we can all agree despite our other disagreements.  Let's make Bush either back down or face justice.  Let our steadfast actions make that justice flow like a river and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.



    Don't say anything A (none / 0) (#139)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    My bad for not seeing the dkos link there beside the Verizon ad.  And, the writing wasn't your style and that should have been a tell.

    Parent
    BTW, Kagro X has a post (none / 0) (#140)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    that does explain the bigger picture.

    With disinformation (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    Kagro has trafficked in disnforamtion on this throughout.

    Parent
    It is disinformation to discuss why (none / 0) (#146)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:14:35 PM EST
    the Iran-Contra group and others were left unencumbered to continue their deceits?

    Parent
    On impeachment and oversight? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:23:10 PM EST
    Iran-contra is an interesting case.

    Did the pardons stop the congresional inquiries? No they were ended LONG  before 1992.

    IT is disinformation to act as if the pardons were what stopped the IRan-Contra train.

    INCREDIBLY disingenuous.

    Parent

    Who cares about removal from Senate? (none / 0) (#157)
    by ctrenta on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 10:02:14 AM EST
    David Lindorff nails it with this recent article. Who says removal from office is what's necessary?

    I'm getting sick and tired of hearing Democrats afraid of impeachment claim that it can't be done because the Senate, where Democrats hold a precarious one-seat edge, would never vote to convict and remove, which would require 67 votes.

    Let's get something straight:

    Impeachment is not about conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is a stand-alone action of the House of Representatives, and requires a simple majority.

    Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.

    When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment.  Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.

    Under the Constitution, after investigating the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president or other federal officer in an impeachment panel composed of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, which would then approve articles of impeachment, the House would vote on whether to impeach the executive.

    If they concluded that Bush or Cheney, in this case, had abused their power, or had damaged the nation, or committed treason or bribery, they could then vote to impeach.

    At that point the president and/or vice president would stand impeached.

    For all time, they would be known as defilers of the Constitution--or perhaps as traitors, depending upon the nature of the articles approved by a House majority.

    Their nefarious actions--the lying to Congress and American people, the violation of international laws, the violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments, the subversion of elections, the obstruction of justice, the criminal negligence, the war crimes, the usurping of the power of the Congress and the Courts--would all stand publicly condemned by the People's Body.

    Whether they resigned, went on to a Senate trial, or just ran out their remaining terms of office, Bush and Cheney would leave Washington with a big red "I" emblazoned on their chests to the day they died. Nixon wore that scarlet letter even though he never even had his case go as far as a House vote. His rotting corpse still wears that bright letter of shame.

    So forget that red herring about a Senate trial being a non-starter.

    Who cares about a Senate trial! For myself, I think that once we got those impeachment hearings going, and once the crimes of this administration started being aired on live television for all to see, and without the mediation of reporters and spin doctors, a Senate trial and conviction would be extremely likely, but whether I'm right or not really doesn't matter.

    What we need is impeachment hearings and impeachment by the House!

    Enough excuses!

    We have a criminal cabal in the White House that is doing incalculable damage to our nation and to our Constitution, and so far we see in Congress is a dithering, cowardly bunch of people afraid to even stand up for the honor of their own institution.