Impeachment - yet another discussion

Merry Christmas to all Duers.

So I`m reading the greatest threads and see the massive impeachment thread. Much discussion, at some times quite angry and frustrated, seems to occur between the "impeach" and "not to impeach" brigades. Now, I am siding with the "no legal duty to impeach" crowd, I think arguing over semantics is wrong. Its pretty clear that when reading "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" the shall is an order to remove upon conviction.

Herein lies the problem with Pelosi`s stance, and why I think many people are so angry at her. By taking impeachment off the table, she is in fact, absolving Bush of all investigations into his acts, thus in effect, pardoning him. Let me use an analogy. Say the police said, "prosecution for theft is off the table". What they would be effectively doing is giving anyone who stole a pass to steal. The fact that Pelosi took impeachment off the table, means she is in effect saying, irrespective of what information I get, irrespective of what proof may be supplied, we will not impeach. You can dress this up in meaningless political statements like "they don`t have the votes", but the reality is pretty clear to me.

This of course has a secondary effect. If John Conyers walks into Pelosi`s office tomorrow and says, we have definitive proof that Bush has committed High Crimes, proof that will stand up in a court of law, would impeachment still be off the table? According to Pelosi`s blanket statement, yes it would. Therefore, what possible motive would there be for someone to come forward and whistle blow? Certainly the constitution doesn`t mandate impeachment, however, the law mandates investigation.

This is why Pelosi`s statement is so wrong and evokes so much anger. Impeachment can never be off the table, as it is a remedy to remove a corrupt president, however, Pelosi, by making her statement, has said that she doesn`t care if the president is corrupt, if he has committed crimes, she will not impeach. That makes her a co-conspirator. Again, using the analogy of a thief. If you know someone is committing credit card fraud, and you don`t report it, you are classed under law as a co-conspirator. If you tell the fraudster you will never report it, you are enabling the fraudster, and again, you are a co-conspirator. This I`m afraid, is what Pelosi is at this point and no spin can change that.

So thats my 2 cents.

Peace

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2534980&mesg_id=2534980

NGU.

There is no excuse for allowing the criminals to operate this long. None.

:toast:

NGU.

It is possible they have the negatives... or they know that she took money from the wrong person. It is also possible that they told her that if she allows Conyers to begin investigations, Lieberman might just decide it is a good time to switch parties and become a repug in name. This would switch the Senate to repug with all the problems this involves. Maybe she figures it is better to let BushCo continue their crimes and have the Senate in 'Democratic' hands than to let BushCo continue their crimes and let the Senate fall to the repugs....

"we're just to busy with other important matters, etc."

Everyone getting their knickers in a bunch about the intent of "shall" in the US Constitution is really missing the point and
akin to arguing about angels on a pin. As you so eloquently stated, it's Pelosi's enabling complicity that is so inexcusable,
as it in effect excuses ANY president from EVER being held accountable for ANY crimes they may commit .. EVER .. and this is
a very dangerous and reckless thing to do as it actively INVITES criminal activity in high places.

Thank you for your lucid and insightful post.

has no effect on investigations. If new investigations turn up incontrovertible proof of crimes committed, then impeachment would be back on.

People seem to think that impeachment is the beginning of the investigative process - it is not. Impeachment is the RESULT of the investigative process.

You don't impeach, then start looking for the crime. You find the crime, you gather the evidence, THEN you impeach.

...turn up proof of wrongdoing, but we can't hold IMPEACHMENT hearings until we begin the IMPEACHMENT process?

:rofl:

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

NGU.

In the Nixon case, the first steps that led ultimately to the impeachment inquiry was an investigation by the Senate -- started long before anyone was suggesting impeachment.

Similarly, it was the Starr investigation of Clinton that set the table for the effort to impeach him.

I've long argued here that the Democrats should be more aggressive in investigating the various actions of the administration and should be more forceful in responding to the stonewalling of the administration. That, imho, is their biggest failure.

Just plain, flat-out wrong.

You don't need impeachment hearings to investigate. You need regular old congressional investigations, or a good old special prosecutor.

The Senate Watergate hearings weren't impeachment hearings (obviously). But they brought forth the evidence of criminality that led the House to begin impeachment proceedings. The Clinton impeachment hearings didn't uncover any new information - they used the Starr report.

It is just absolutely untrue that you start impeachment hearings and then go look for the crime.

:rofl:

That's another good one.

By the way, you said we need "incontrovertible proof of crimes committed" to begin IMPEACHMENT hearings. Do we need "incontrovertible proof of crimes committed" in order to hold a murder trial? In other words, you think we have to prove the crime first in order to hold hearings to prove the crime?

:eyes:

NGU.

it's evident that she is clearly fucking up here. What it boils down to for me is it makes me not trust Pelosi, or Reid, or Conyers, etc.. If she or her family were threatened, that's quite sick and I certainly wouldn't wish it on her, but for goodness sake the WHOLE nation she has sworn to protect is being jeapordized by these criminals, and they are getting away with torture and murder, and they are destroying our Constitution!

Yes, clearly unspinnable.

But it is the "investigations" red herring that is the real canard.

This regime claims publicly and proudly the "unitary," monarchical power to ignore literally anything Congress or any court says. It rules (impeachably) by Signing Statement.

There is nothing to investigate. No smoking gun to look for. No secret tapes to play. The worst is already on the public record.

Those who still suffer from impeachophobia likely will never "recover." They are just as complicit as Madame Squeaker and the Won't-Do-Nothing DC Dems.

===

Pelosi's famous "off the table" comment can simply mean they believe impeachment is not possible, or not practical, or not the best way. I don't see how the conclusion that she is absolving them of their crimes follows.

There are plenty of investigations going on, suggesting that Congressional Democrats are not exactly giving Bush a free ride.

you are absolved.

Sorry, but thats the reality. As I said, spin it how you want, but don`t ignore this crucial point. Impeachment is a remedy and a punishment, separate from civil prosecution, the framers made it that way specifically.

Peace

Whether or not that's the intent, that's the effect.

NGU.

In the original discussions, Mr. Madison thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The imitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

Peace

and that they'd have investigations and hearings that would lead to the inevitable conclusion that impeachment is imperative.

I was wrong and VERY disappointed.

This is their JOB. To let it go is to relinquish the power of the people and of Congress to exercise its DUTY under the Constitution. It's a terrible precedent and a terrible injustice.

I don't know what excuse there can be for it.

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

I`m am starting to feel the impeachment word is an unnecessary distraction.

Peace