High Crimes and Misdemeanors

[Linkster]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22349

The former chief of staff at the State Dept (under Powell) has spoken out - and describes exactly what the impeachment for Bush and Cheney should be about right now

[Bill]

My wife gets all excited whenever she hears anything about impeachment.

I just don't think it's going to happen, tho. The dems just aren't as low-minded as the republicans were under Gingrich.

If the Clinton impeachment process taught us anything, it's that a republican congress has few if any principles, and little concern for what's good for the country.

The Republican's War sure put the highlights on that. Lie to start a war, you're good to go - lie about a blowjob, now that's impeachable.

However, one can always hope.

[Mr. Blue]

The Dems should go for it, but they won't. They're playing a very peculiar and I think dangerous game of inactivity at the moment. They're trying to win '08 purely on the Republicans fucking up consistently...which might work as the Republicans seem to be doing just that.

However there's a danger in that and I can see a few scenarios and very plausible scenarios, where we end up with a Republican President again. What ultimately pisses me off about the Democrats is they should have never lost two elections to Bush...both should have been landslide victories. I don't mean count the vote and check for a dangling chad...I'm talking about complete and total landslide victories.

The Dems have the Republicans beaten, but they won't go after the jugular of impeachment. They're giving the Republicans exactly what they need...time to regroup.

I've always said it...people vote for Leaders not pussies. Democrats want to lead? They better start sprouting some balls.

[Bill]

I'm not as disatisfied with the dems as you seem to be. Because their majority in the senate is slim, they can't force anything past Bush's veto and the republican desire to hold onto power.

I think the investigations are going satisfactorily well, and the dems aren't paying any attention to repeated republican calls to end investigations.

What do you think they could realistically do that they are not doing?

[Bill]

Of course, I was a bit annoyed at the recent drug importation vote.

Not that I need expendsive drugs now, but I'd like to have the option if I did.

[Mr. Blue]

What do you think they could realistically do that they are not doing?

Let's see...follow through with impeachment proceedings. Just a wild thought. Democrats won't do it, but it is one thing that they could do, but won't do. The problem is when you start digging deep enough you see that the Democrats complacency borders on the criminal.

Dick Durbin (D) said this recently:

"The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it. ... So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth."

All I have to say is every Senator in the Intelligence Committee should be tossed out right along with Bush.

The problem is the Democrats are in bed with the Republicans, have been from the start, and the only time they're foaming at the mouth against the Republicans is when a camera is on them...second the camera is off their voting record tells a rather different story.

There's more, but that's a start...politics as usual and usual politics kind of suck.

[Mr. Blue]

Just wanted to add. At times I get more pissed at Democrats because that's who I vote for usually unless there's a good 3rd party candidate. If I see a republican fuck up I can grumble under my breath, fucking idiots that elected him. When I see a democrat that I voted for, that I donated money to, fuck up it's like they broke a personal agreement with me to uphold their campaign promises and that just that just pisses me off.

[stefan segal]

Blue...amen brother.

I think the fact that the whole bunch are millionairs, they see life differently...have values we don't even recognize as a part of our reality.

It's like if they all had HIV...they would make different choices...choices we would real all sorts of stuff into...like who paid them to vote like that...but we wouldn't "get it".

What I see is people like Obama, come into office jsut bursting with all the reforms they're going to institute, and three years later you can't tell them from any of the other whores that take up space and burn our tax dollars.

There are exceptions...thank the god(s) of your choice, some of them not so far out there (see Kucinich) that they aren't actually effective. Some of them. like Kennedy, is such an old whore that he's too rich to bribe, and is effective just to keep himself awake. So there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

I have expectation of the new breed of dems just seated...some of them breathe fire...I just hope it last for a while before they begin their election drive $$$ in earnest.

I believe that dems are more responsive to their constituients then repugs...who get bigger lumps of $$$ from fewer people (people who all have their axe to grind) and are happy and generous as long as the repugs continue fucking everything up for us...the little people who don't count.

So in the condition we're in, it;s sort of a no brainer to vote dem...any third party doens't have a chance to represent you for your vote...and wouldn't have any connections if they did get in. That socialist guy from Vermont is an exception...votes with the dems...unlike that liberman bastard.

I saw a header talking about the combination from hell...mccain-lieberman...actually it was a repug talking head...he had the balls to say they were a perfect pair as together they showed accross the aisle cooperation.

Stefan

[Ravenn22]

I maybe naive, but as I remember the House and Senate are legislative bodies comprised of people we elect that are paid by our tax dollars. I think it is about time we start demanding that they listen to us, yes, the "We the people" part of the government. Their voting record is public record, find your representatives and let them know you are watching.

RE. High Crimes. Yes, I think George Bush should be impeached, I am sorry the dems cannot muster the moral fortitude to tackle that issue. Yes, I think the repubs would defeat any attempt, but not to at least try to call him to task for his crimes against our nation is not acceptable.

If we do not demand honest government we will not get it. If we let others do and think for us we will get self-serving and dishonest people in our government. "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it." Daniel Webster

[Bill]

You can't actually impeach a president without a two thirds vote of the senate.

Since they could never get a two thirds vote of the senate, it would just be a political show to try to impeach at this time.

I think the dems are wary of just being seen as trying to get revenge for the clinton impeachment, and of wasting america's time.

Rifght now, investigations, which may uncover a crime that would force the senate to vote with that two thirds majority, or at least humiliate the administration and force them to give up any further plans for dirty tricks, seem to me to be a good compromise.

As I see it, the republicans need to be punished more before they will give up their fantasies of a permanent plutocracy based on terror.

[Linkster]

Bill - that actually isnt correct
To impeach an official you need a simple majority of the House of Representatives - the trial afterwards for punishment is in the Senate
The basic process is that articles of impeachment are introduced in the House - they vote to refer it to the Judicial committee (again just a majority is needed - not 2/3's) and money is voted to finance the investigative process.
Once the facts are known and presented then the House votes for impeachement - and again only needs a majority.
Once that is complete (which is where Clintons process got to) - it is referred to the Senate for a trial. This is then set up with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sitting as judge and the Senators as "jurors"
This is the point where the legal sufficiency for actual consequences is meted out - in othere words- the jail time is figured out based on the crimes that the House sent over for trial - and this point is where the 2/3s is needed

As far as I know, articles have already been filed for Cheney and have been referred to the Judicial committee for action - and there are articles pending for Bush although I think the Dems are waiting to get their bills passed and see what direction they go before they bring the articles to the floor for referral for investigation

[Bill]

The articles of impeachment require a simple majority in the House of Representatives.

Thats what they did to clinton.

The actual impeachment is done by the senate, and requires a two/thirds majority.

Which is where the clinton impeachment failed.

They didn't impeach clinton, they just started the process, with articles of impeachment.

Wiki says the house acts as prosecutor, and the Articles of Impeachment is equivalent to an indictment, but the senate is judge and jury.

It would just be a repeat of the clinton debacle, and the majority of american regarded the clinton articles of impeachment as a political game.

I think the current dems are handling things just fine - investigate until the blood flows in the streets.

[Linkster]

Bill - thats correct - just a terminology thing - in the house rules book they call what they do "impeachment" and what the senate does is "conviction"

Here's the pertinant provisions from the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

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.

[Linkster]

One very important thing to remember is that no president has ever been "convicted" by the Senate - the two cases where a president was impeached were A. Johnson and Clinton - a lot of people think Nixon was but he resigned before the house was finished its investigational hearings

And in those cases Clinton and Johnson the Senate acquitted both of them

[Bill]

I think it would be interesting to see a grand jury paneled to investigate "voter fraud" and wether or not the voting process has been dirty tricked and corrupted.

I'm not sure that a grand jury is technically the correct way such a thing would be investigated, but it would be nice to see some states squirming under the investigators examination.

I for one no longer have faith in the integrity of the vote.

[Linkster]

Bill - you should be interested in this then - CREW has filed a FEC filing this week and it should fly as Martinez is probably as crooked as they come when it comes to fixing elections
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28294

[Mr. Blue]

It would just be a repeat of the clinton debacle, and the majority of american regarded the clinton articles of impeachment as a political game.

Apples and Oranges.

Seriously the Clinton thing was just ridiculous. It was a damn blowjob...oh sure a Republican is going to come along and say it was all about perjury, etc. Nope...it was a blowjob.

No matter how many ways you try to look at the Clinton debacle, it all comes back to a blowjob, heck the only thing I would have convicted him of is not getting a better looking intern.

Bush is another case all together. Popularity sucks, people voted for the democrats more as a vote against Bush than anything else. They're pussies for not going after the brass ring. If they did the Republicans would be a paper tiger for a long time to come.

[Betty Blowtorch]

The Bush gang has committed so many felonies and breaches
of public trust, I want them impeached as badly as anyone.

But I think we're crossing our I's http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/9117/avatarbabycrosseyesno6.jpg
and putting the cart before the horse.

Instead of prematurely clamoring for Impeachment,
the Dems should quietly start an avalance of Investigations.

As more and more crimes are revealed and publicized by the
Congressional investigations, it will generate more and more
momentum until finally a tipping point is reached, and the
public outcry for impeachment will become so overwhelming
that even our gutless Democratic leaders won't be able to
hold back the tidal wave.

Introducing articles of impeachment at this early stage of
the game is just a futile gesture.

[stefan segal]

Blowtorch...you got down exactly right, only I would like to add to your process two steps between investigating the facts ...facts that would without the possibility of contradiction provide proof of his guilt, and the rise of public outcry.

The first being...with evidence in hand and secretly passed to butch/cheney lawyers to convince the little prrick and his impotent handler not only of uimpeachment but prison time, the congress blackmail these bastards into giving back our Constitution, repeal the patriot acts, skin the top one percent to finance thier own war...and wahtever fillips one care to add to this list.

While energetically blackmailing these shits, at the same time leak bits and pieces of the evidence into the blogisphere to keep the fire of public opinion growing...as I really don't want this administration to leave office without the mother of all damnations...impeachment first...prison second ( unless a black ops team were to kidnap and transport them to an Iranian prison and court system for a world trial)

Stefan

[Linkster]

Betty - actually the act of introducing impeachment articles would in itself generate tons of investigative committees - I was following the Nixon investigations during the entire process and Im sort of comparing the two as very similar - the difference now is that a much higher percentage of US citizens support impeachment right now (latest numbers were around 40% last week) - compared to a smaller (the only numbers I could find to compare was around 25% back then at the same point) percentage favoring Nixons impeachment. As information came out the support actually swelled but I dont believe it ever got as high as it stands in the US today

The biggest problem that you have is actually very similar to what happened back in the early 70s - the Dems had the majority back then but impeachment wasnt really talked about at first either - very similar to Pelosi these days saying that its not on her table. Back then after a few months of investigations and public hearings it finally got on the US citizens nerves when little things like Nixon firing the special prosecuter to avoid giving up white house audio tapes and similar actions occurred.

The strikingly funny thing is that the acts back then that were under investigation (wiretapping US citizens without their knowledge) are almost exactly the same high crimes that are being looked at today with the FISA court avoidence used by Bush (which by the way he has publicly stated he is not required to follow the law on - an exact public admission of guilt)

[Mr. Blue]

Betty - actually the act of introducing impeachment articles would in itself generate tons of investigative committees - I was following the Nixon investigations during the entire process and Im sort of comparing the two as very similar - the difference now is that a much higher percentage of US citizens support impeachment right now...

Exactly correct. The process of impeachment will generate a very active investigation and the numbers look good for people supporting this impeachment process.

So why not? My only guess is that Democrats have this odd notion that by not taking any bold steps that they secure the Presidency in '08. To me that just seems like a risky gamble. You elect people lead...you don't elect weak individuals that care about the next election cycle.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Betty - actually the act of introducing impeachment articles
would in itself generate tons of investigative committees.
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have repeatedly said
"impeachment is off the table." My heart sank when they
said it, but what can you do? It is what it is.

I think the best we can hope for is that the Dems will keep
pursuing more investigations like the one involving the firing
of federal attorneys, in which Attorney General Gonzalez
said "I don't recall" 60 times.

I wish our Democratic leaders would fight tough and hard
like the Repugs do, but I've learned not to expect much
from the pink tutu Democrats. We handed them a clear
electoral mandate in November 2006, and yet Dubya is
INCREASING troop strength in Iraq.

Looks like the whole rotten bunch have been bought
and paid for by the corporations.