1) Impeachment will further divide this country. (That's Barack Obama's stance. Someone here in Illinois asked him about this at a luncheon prior to his presidential campaigning and he was so cold about this.)

2) Not enough people support impeachment 

3) You can hold Bush and Cheney accountable without impeaching them. (Pelosi's stance) 

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 2:34:14 PM

  (0+)

The case for impeachment for both Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors, too numerous to mention, is that it is a matter of the requirement of the law, as provided for in the Constitution.  The binding phrase is, "The President...SHALL be impeached, for high crimes and misdemeanors."  No if, and, buts, maybes or equivocation about it.  When the Republicans in Congress vote against impeachment after the evidence proves the crimes, they are in violation of the Constitutional requirement tht they impeach, and they are reminded that that is a crime and they can go to prison for it.  This is called playing hardball.

The fact that impeachment would be blocked by the Republican members of Congress, and not succeed,  is not a reason to quit trying to save our drowning country.  A drowning man doesn't quit trying to survive, even though he can't swim. 

One case against impeachment of Bush and Cheney is that it doesn't necessarily remove them from office, and even if it did, it would only remove two Republicans from our politically, ethically and morally compromised government, which has been subverted by the Republicans.

The other case against impeachment is that the most it would accomplish is removal from office, a result totally out of proportion to the magnitude of the crimes.  It should properly be a criminal investigation, easily proving the crimes, with the inevitable prison time to follow.  That physically removes them from office. 

But, there's a quirk in the Constitution.  There are no disqualifications for being President.  It does not prohibit a convicted criminal, serving time, from being President.  It only requires that the President be of the proper age, citizenship and residency.  So, according to the Constitution, Bush could be convicted and sent to prison and, with the inevitable support of Mukasey, still serve as President from his prison cell.  Hell of a note.

So, we're left in a quandry:

With only impeachment and removal, Bush goes free, no prison time.

With only a straight criminal conviction, he can still be President.

Only with impeachment, removal and a criminal conviction does Bush serve time and justice is done.

It looks like impeachment and removal, a slap on the wrist, is about the best we can hope for.

by Ed Martin (139 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 173 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 3:27:19 PM

  (0+)

get a blowjob.

Thus the public interest is low. 

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 3:46:07 PM

  (0+)

Not one we know about anyway.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1750 comments [111 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 6:37:07 PM

  (0+)

For any of our representatives in the House, their Oath of Office should compel them to impeach both leaders of the Executive Branch. Failure to impeach as a measure to protect the Constitution of the United States of America is a failure to uphold their Oath of Office and as far as I am concerned, grounds for impeachment of those representatives themselves.

Enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land is not an optional exercise for these representatives. All three branches are arguably responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Constitution. They must carry out their duty.

Once the House of Representatives votes approval of the articles of impeachment, the Senate will have no option but to try the case. It seems to me that in the case of the People of the United States against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, even the Senate's most stalwart partisan Republicans will be compelled to convict in the face of such a mountain of clear evidence.

If they fail in their duty, it is incumbent upon us as citizens to remove all of the criminals, Bush, Cheney and their supporters in the legislature, and deal appropriate justice to them.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 3:58:23 PM

  (0+)

Politicians are all the same. The Democrats want to get Bush & Cheney out. Then Nancy Pelosi could be president.
OR

We'll soon have a Democrat in the White House and she'll clean up the mess.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 4:13:45 PM

  (0+)

...in 14 months Bush/Cheney can do too much damage. 

Unbelievably...more than they've already done.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:20:04 AM

  (0+)

1.  Bush and Cheney have broken no laws

The argument will be that as Commander-in-Chief, Bush and his designate Cheney have not violated any laws.  The counter argument:  The violation of Geneva Convention principles would be a breaking of U. S. law since the United States has signed "a treaty" banning torture and other mistreatment of detainees.  International Treaties become U. S. Law and may not be negated by the President.  Justice Bryer 9 Oct 2007.

2.   Bush and Cheney committed no crime by lying to the American people to lead them into an illegal war-they were the victims of bad intelligence.  The counter argument is that they cherry picked "facts" and "molded" thru a web of propaganda a hysteria in America taking 67% of the public to believe that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. 

3.  Actions taken by Bush and Cheney were authorized by Congress

The counter argument is that Congress actually only authorized Bush and Cheney to determine the threat and take approperiate action.  The fact that the decision was proffered thru lies and deception by Bush and Cheney should negate the authorization.  In other words they committed a fraud  

by Cliff Carson (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 6:12:08 PM

  (0+)

I have used the basis for impeachment that J. Sanchez puts forth and it seems to roll right off them. In Fla. we have two Repugs and one Dem, though these days I'm not too sure of Bill Nelson's loyalties anymore. I imagine Mel Martinez and Dave Weldon laugh their asses off but I always get one of those cleverly worded "we are glad to hear from you on this matter" without enumerating why. Hopefully, when we get through this as a nation, the guilty will be named and made to pay. And that includes Dems who have participated in corporate Fascism, two of which are the highest ranking women.

by HarpMan1224 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 6:18:59 PM

  (0+)

Actually, a successfiul impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney will give us Speaker Pelosi as President. And let's be honest, the Honorable junior Senator Clinton from the great state of New York will NOT stand for that.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 6:53:50 PM

  (0+)

Impeach Cheney, then wait til Bush appoints his successor. Then Impeach Bush, making his VP choice the new prez. Bad, but better than Pelosi.

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 8:30:37 PM

  (0+)

if that Republican had the personal character to put the Constitution (and their own oath to support and defend it) above loyalty to the President and to so impeach when impeachment was warranted when an opportunistic unprincipled personal oath breaking Democrat didn't.

How can those represented trust so called representatives of any political flavor if those representatives won't stand behind the first oath they make as a representative? Impeachment (when it is genuinely warranted) is an issue more fundamental than party. Impeachment forces a choice between loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to the incumbent.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:33:23 PM

  (0+)

Cliffcarson has got it right, however, what difference does it make? Hellhooray gets the demoncrat nod and its who the corporatacracy wants to replace Busky in the first place. So it's business as usual. Left and right wing of the same bird of prey and they sure have been preying on us--prayers and all. Hate to sound like a cynic, but at 72, my faith in the proletariat is dwindling rapidly.

by Dadeoh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 9:01:05 PM

  (0+)

That those that know these men don't think of them as deserving of being harmed and humiliated. That they have done the best they could in the difficult circumstances of the post 9-11 world.  They didn't create the world they just got elected into office to do what they could with the tools that were available and with their human limitations. 

And it is not the American way to blame people for doing their best and failing. The President took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" but to "the best of his ability". But he is not responsible for being promoted beyond his abilities. And he is not God to have some magic wand to waive or miracles to work. The American people chose Bush knowing he was just a fallible ordinary man. They can't humiliate him. That would be too cruel. 

That Bush is not guilty of high crimes because he has lacked mense re. The criminal mindset. He never intended to do wrong. And those that know him like him and they do not want to hurt and humiliate him without seeing that  it would help matters. And they think they could not have done any better had they had to occupy the Presidency in the circumstances he did.

----------

Blah. Its a good exercise you try Rob, too few pro impeachment folks do take the time to look at the alternative views and so too few understand why impeachment is such a hard thing to persuade others too, but I don't want to defend the indefensible.   Give Bush a fair trial I say and I do mean fair but dammit what is at stake here is the US constitution and whether the worlds leading power is going to be pro or anti rule of law. Impeachment doesn't require a John the Baptist head on a platter, it does require though an honest and open appraisal of what went wrong. And without that there cannot be a correction. 

I don't want impeachment for revenge I want impeachment to correct a terrible disease.  I want impeachment so that the United States can show the world - look we really are FOR the rule of law and we are sorry and we want return to living our values.  That torture stuff and illegal invasions stuff that was largely a mistake by well meaning people having to do too much with too poor tools.  

I want impeachment to be a liberating moment for America and the world. Let the reluctant rogue country repent and come home. Frankly cleaning up terrorism and reforming the UN look to be easy to me if America can show the world that it will walk its talk on values.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 9:24:41 PM

  (0+)

Careful, Brett.  Don't you be talkin' 'bout any of dat reasonable and practical nonsense 'round here now.  We be simple folk that just want to see a good ole tarrin' and featherin' of two stuffed pigeons is all.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 9:58:13 PM

  (0+)

Tom,

This is in bad taste satire but if bad taste was a criteia for inappropriate language on this site there should be a lot of others with their unfounded and unsustainable abuse that should be banned.

But I'm sure the editor will realize that throwing the baby out with the bath water is inappropriate.

I wonder if the complainer is just against the other opinion

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:19:16 AM

  (0+)

and I won't.

But I don't think he is here in good faith. And I do think it is fair enough to warn people about that because they may spend a lot of time with Tom that they could have put to better use. 

Bush is not yet impeached. Tom has never said he was in favour of impeaching Bush and yet joined in the discussion about building counterarguments with a swag of diversionary arguments or statements against Democrats and against the people who are posting here.  

Some forms of nuisance can actually be tactical.  If it looks like a cogent impeachment movement might emerge sending dissenters in to break it up might be a smart play.  I'm not saying that Tom is here for anything other than his own amusement. But I do recall Tony Snow whose job it once was to put the White House spin out, stating that the cavalry was on the way. ie. Essentially to break up the organised internet resistance and the protesting that was impacting on the President. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:29:26 PM

  (0+)

Your deflecting statement of thinking that I'm probably here for my own amusement was mentioned first to make "right" your ability to leave the more poignant and lasting comment thereafter.

But I take it as a complement, Brett, that you think I'm some sort of operative sent in "behind enemy lines" to sow confusion, disrupt lines of communication, and cause general mayhem at OpEdNews.com. You make my actions sound like that of a contemporary, political General Sherman on my own March to the Sea of Truth. However, your thinking that I am an operative is yet more evidence that demonstrates a fair number of folks here not only confine themselves to a half-full glass world (i.e., constantly viewing the issue in the worst light possible) – but they actually thrive off of this viewing and its sinister suppositions.

"[Tom] joined in the discussion about building counterarguments with a swag of diversionary arguments or statements against Democrats and against the people who are posting here."

The impeachment counterarguments are not diversionary but realistic. I've even sourced authors and others who have similar thoughts to myself. I'd call this an alternative perspective or opinion but not diversionary. It's only diversionary if you believe that your position is the ONLY position and that no other position is possible. Adopting such a belief only limits your thinking and narrows your view of others to that of Tony Snow operative.

As I discussed at length elsewhere here about your "warning" comment, Brett, there is nothing wrong with disagreement. You seem to believe that all who post here must essentially believe in the validity of the same issue with the only differences limited to nuances. I disagree with this belief not on the grounds that you are a liberal or Democrat, but instead, such thought is limiting and destructive toward the spirit of compromise that is sadly lacking in political debate today.

As an aside and in response to the flagged comment, I DO apologize if it offended anyone. I actually did debate the posting of it, knowing that some could've taken it the wrong way – which they appear to have done. It was meant to highlight what I perceived was Brett's twist on using a kernel of truth to then wrap and layer impeachment in not just a possible light but also a legally needed one.

While I agree with the possibility that impeachment could happen as part of the total range of options, I disagree with its legal necessity. To the extent that the case for impeachment is a complex and not black and white as Brett would have it, the use of a slow southern drawl fit the perception of slow, simple folk not in need of all that fancy talk.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 1:48:17 PM

  (0+)

"But, there's a quirk in the Constitution. There are no disqualifications for being President. It does not prohibit a convicted criminal, serving time, from being President."

Section 4 [Impeachment]

"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 ...."

The Presidency is an office. Thats not a building its a role. Removing the President from office means removing the incumbent from the role (and of course the powers of the Presidency which vest in that executive office).

I'm Australian, not American, I could be wrong in my interpretation of your Constitution. But I think I am pretty confident that I am right so you'd have to show me evidence of my error to convince me.

This sort of discussion could be good for sharpening the intellectual blades of those who to protect the Constitution need to better understand it.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:10:31 PM

  (0+)

Notice the wording.  The President shall be removed from office on impeachment AND conviction.  It requires both to remove.  The President can be impeached, but without conviction, cannot be removed.

Ed.

by Ed Martin (139 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 173 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:04:58 AM

  (0+)

also done, not by the courts, but by the Senate? 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 4:27:36 PM

  (0+)

That's right.  The House impeached Clinton, but the Senate didn't convict.  The impeach and convict terms in the Constitution refer only to actions by the Congress, not the judiciary.  There are no disqualifications for President for being a criminal,  convicted in the judicial system, as the current President shows.  Bush has a criminal record.

All you must have to be President is the proper age, residency and citizenship.  Being a convicted criminal is not a disqualification, since there are none.  A convicted criminal with the three qualifications could be elected, then if the Congress wanted to, it could take up Congressional impeachment,  conviction and removal, based on the judicial conviction, a separate thing.  But, if Congress chose not to, as they have with Bush, we could have a criminal serving as President, as we do now. 

That's the quirk.

Ed.

by Ed Martin (139 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 173 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 7:27:10 PM

  (0+)

I didn't know George W Bush had been convicted of something in the past.

Actually, I personally wouldn't object to an ex-convict being elected President so long as the voters were given a chance to take into account the whole character of the person and their history including the conviction. Sometimes people change.  

Crimes committed in office after taking the Presidential oath and when it is part of the duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed, are in a completely different moral category to me.

I'd regard an illegal invasion of a country resulting in massive and foreseeable loss of life of both American servicemen and women and hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners (including women and children) as extremely serious. Mass murder scales of moral seriousness. I don't want Presidents to be able to get away with mass murder.  Which is why I'm for impeachment. That and the fact that Presidents are examples. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:50:25 PM

  (0+)

We ca argue all we can about not impeachment. but i say  how about the stealing of two presidential elections?? dont this say something?  this should be considerd as FRAUD. A IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. these two imposter's or swindler's should never be president and vice-president of america.what do you have to say about this?

by vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 185 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:51:48 PM

  (0+)

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.  Even if it ultimately failed, the sheer amount of  additional filth it would uncover, and the  deafening out-cry from the public, the vast majority of whom DO support impeachment of BOTH men (I include unregistered voters who just might vote if there were a f*cking reason to), would have EXACTLY the opposite effect of failing in the longer run; the will of the people will -once again- have been spat upon, but the clear difference the second time around, is that the Democrats aren't going to get anything but applause for trying.

But I don't just want them both impeached.  I want criminal trials; trials that go on for years, and which ultimately result in the convictions of, and public execution by firing squade of probably dozens 9if not hundreds) of treasonous career criminals who've materially and irreparably damaged our nation through knowing complicity, or outright conspiracy.  We need far, far more than impeachment to right this ship in the eyes of a shrinking and increasingly hostile -to us- world.   These people need to be given public due process and then die.   Who knows, maybe we could get another 150 years out of this place if the rest of the world actually saw "we the people" put an end to their torment in our name.

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 8:47:54 AM

  (0+)

If it goes forward, it NEEDS to succeed, or else you will get the exact opposite of what you want.

the Republicants wanted to impeach Clinton...  Well, Clinton knew that they would not succeed, so he didn't let it bother him... In fact, he used it to make the CONgress look like a bunch of baboons!  (no offense to baboons)

However, it really does not matter for the CONgress, since their approval rating in some polls are in single digits.. 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 9:28:22 AM

  (0+)

"If it goes forward, it NEEDS to succeed, or else you will get the exact opposite of what you want."

Impeachment is BOTH political and legal.

Do you want future Presiden's of any political persuasion to have to keep their Presidential oath? Do you want congressional representatives to have to keep theirs?  

Unless you still genuinely think that impeachment is not justified in this case then I think you are armchair quarterbacking plays that are so complex that it isn't possible to predict what will happen and so to predict that trying and failing will be worse than not trying at all.

If impeachment goes ahead it will have to go ahead by those in favour of it providing substantial charges and evidence. They will have to make the case. And the Republicans will make them make that case out of loyalty to their own President and that is fine too. He should get a fair trial. 

But if it doesn't (when the substance is there and it should as a matter of law) then libertarians (or general ordinary citizens) like yourself will have been disenfranchised from your own Constitution. You won't be able to be confident that your representatives will ever represent you even on the most serious of matters to you. You won't be able to be sure that your rights won't be set aside as an acceptable loss for a political gain. Because right now precedents are being established - and one is the precedent of not supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The evidence for that was in the voting patterns of Kucininch's resolution to impeach Cheney. Both the major parties voted politically (short term) strategically rather than having the members make their votes on the substance and in consideration of their own oaths of office.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:54:41 PM

  (0+)

This has been the most investigated administration in history, YET, none of these investigations have turned up any evidence of anything that would qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors....

CONgress, who failed to either declare war or say NO, YOU CAN'T INVADE ON OUR WATCH, abdicated its Constitutionally spelled out duty.  Instead, they gave that duty to Bush.  Who is CONgress to sit in judgement of anyone?

Bush cherry picked the facts when he went out and sold the invasion.  Well, Military Intelligence is charged with presenting the "WORST CASE SCENARIO", and members of CONgress KNOW this....

It is up to the members of CONgress to read the intelligence reports.  For some reason, very few of them actually did, thus negating the "Bush cherry picked the details" argument.  (See that doesn't much matter if nobody was listening to Bush in the first place.)

Candidate Clinton stated to Code Pink that she had her own intelligence report, assembled by her OWN investigators, and her own research AGREES with the Bush assessment (that she did not read herself, but her staffers told her...  How absurd is it that she would complain about being lied to, by the Bush administration?

On a final note...  Maybe Dems should focus on providing positive campaigns rather than trying to run against someone who is not actually running...  Just a thought...  Although, since Dems and Republicans are both owned by the same corporate interests, This is all academic meaningless drivel...  But hey, it was entertaining!  :-)  

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 9:03:39 AM

  (0+)

I'm not sure where you actually do stand on impeachment Steve.

Congress as a large body can't act quite so quickly as a President as a single executive with a lot of lines of intelligence reporting to him personally can. Congress in my view is not responsible for not preventing the invasion of Iraq - that would probably have been to have asked too much of them given that relatively few of them had access to the intelligence briefings and those few would have been careful about speaking outside of the circle out of national security concerns post 9-11.

I do agree with you though that Hillary Clinton in not reading the reports she had access too did not do her job and so its hard for her to criticise Bush effectively.  

Congress like the American people were entitled to trust their President to a significant degree because not to trust him on the Iraq matter pre the invasion would have been to have tied America's hands diplomatically.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 5:19:58 PM

  (0+)

And President Bush had specific authorization for Iraq via the joint resolution of Congress.  Why would you think he would invade or attack Iran without first seeking a similar joint resolution?

Personally, I'm not in favor of any wide-scale military action against Iran; however, surgical or tactical operations might make sense if Iran continues to defy the U.N. resolution and enrich uranium.  If the U.N. continues its recent (past 10-15 years) policy of NOT enforcing its own resolutions (dplomatically or militarily), its intended purpose will be become more and more irrelevant.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 9:04:29 PM

  (0+)

Cuz she's next in line -- and the Repugs'll say she is power grabbing.  And, ya know that power grabbing is ONLY for them, NOT the Dems.

by Rainbow Law (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 42 comments) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 12:56:17 PM

  (0+)

I have deduced that Ms Pelosi was attempting to heal an obvious rift between the two sides of politics that are among other things fracturing the US.  Additionally she was fully cognizant of the practical limitations and inevitable consequences (of which there are many) of going for broke with such a small majority. I also have no doubt that if the proof every raise up or she could see that the consequences wouldn’t be catastrophic for the Dems impeachment would turn up at the top of her agenda. Keep in mind also she got there after year of experience of the machinations of Congressional politics. Had she been a dud it would have shown up years ago.

Given that there is no lay down mazare case of the Guilt of GWB and his cabal in any legal sense 'breached laws".Despite the wisdom (sic) of Judge Roy Bean when he said " you can't hang a man on cirrcumstantial evidence....you need a rope" in this day and age the 'rope' is clear proof.

This is lacking to prove his guilt to a crime it would have to be proven that he either performed or knew of the breach in law. (Watergate the Prez was guilty on both counts)  While it may be true that the senate can convict him they would still need proof and he is "presumed innocent until proved guilty."
 

I can heard the howls from here, but there must remain objective assessment.  At this stage there is no absolute proof that he’s guilty of breaching a statute .The oly thing is is undeniably guilty of is appaling judgment and having inadequate ability.

Keep in mind I too think that this Administration is arguably worse than 'tricky Dickey' simply because. This administration has/is proving more lethal and endangering the US's future security in and of the world.

If there is any indictment it would be a political system that has been corrupted so badly from the high ideals of the founding fathers. The details are for another discussion but be it enough initially to point to the corrupted system that would permit such an obvious ‘stooge’ to be elected in the first place.

Ultimately it comes down to these practical considerations “is the risk worth the effort” and is it likely to succeed. In the minds of the heads of the Democrats it, at the moment isn’t.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:23:54 AM

  (0+)

opedne_rob_kall_071114_help_build_a_list_of.htm

opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=4971 

by RichardKane (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 29 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 9:13:15 PM

  (0+)

RichardKane

I believe that if Impeachment proceedings can be initiated by the House, then investigation will follow.  Those investigations will provide a permanent record for future actions, if they can be undertaken.

Just think.  This Administration can't wait to accuse or harm anyone who disagrees with them.  But they stonewall any attempt to look into their activities, even though those activities are supposedly done for the good of the American people.

We can't let these crimes go without effort to bring justice for all harmed by these renegade wanna be dictators.  These people have no conscience for humanity or for the ones who have intrusted them to lead this country both Morally and with Fidelity.  No, they must face the results of their carnage.

Earlier I listed the three things they will claim:

1.   Bush and Cheney broke no laws

2.   What they did was because of bad Intelligence

3.   Their activities were approved by Congress

I also suggested reasons to deny these assertions.  In these comments, I have seen very little of what Rob asked for:  Senarios they will bring as a defense and the refutations to upset those assertions.

There needs to be a lot of participation in suggesting and giving arguments against what is anticipated to be their defense.

No one should be able to cause the death of over a million people, the destruction of an innocent people's future, all for the quest of Lucre - spelled with 3 letters that's oil.  Estimated at worth $21 Trillion ( That's 21 thousand Billion) at $50 per barrel. 

And that friends and neighbors is the reason for all the termoil in the Middle East.

Cliff Carson

by Cliff Carson (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 9:01:27 PM

  (0+)