If you are busy and intent on spreading the lie that Democrats aren't DOING anything . . .

How is it benefiting the accountability folks claim they want to see to go around knocking every move Congress makes (as many are doing here)?

The most pernicious lie is that our Democrats aren't doing anything about the malfeasance of the Bush administration just because they haven't moved to impeachment.

WHERE WILL YOUR FOCUS BE AS OUR DEMOCRATS CARRY OUT THESE OTHER IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF THEIR OVERSIGHT?

Will you be supporting these actions which could very well lead to prosecutions? Will you join them in their demands for compliance to the flurry of subpoenas from our able investigative committees directed at the White House?

When the shit flew at the Clinton administration there wasn't one republican or conservative operator who didn't promote and defend each and every move Congress made against the White House. This time around, with Bush in the hot seat, many seem satisfied to just proclaim the efforts of our Democrats as ineffectual from the start; no support, just sour grapes because they haven't chosen to adopt some half-assed swing and miss.

But there are MANY confrontations brewing which threaten MANY quarters of this administration. Anyone who tells you that our Democrats are somehow enabling Bush, or letting him off the hook, just because they haven't yet completed these investigations, has no damn idea what they are talking about.

Let's get behind the actions of our Democrats already underway with the full force of our advocacy to effect the accountability we all seek.

:thumbsup:

have introduced an impeachment resolution against Cheney. Let's support that effort too!

I believe we get there by forcing some outside prosecution which could galvanize Congress into supporting some sort of unified action against the White House; maybe an impeachment, but I don't think we should go there first. We would need to build any case for impeachment in public, with hearings; hopefully aided by a Special Commitee.

:hi:

Impeach Bush over immigration!!!

June 22, 2007

House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.

The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-contempt-2007-06-22.html

contempt of Congress??? Anybody

And has ignored it?

and still intend to force her testimony and get her to produce the documents they want:

from the Hill: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rebuffed-by-rice-hadley-house-panel-tracks-down-witnesses-for-iraq-probe-2007-06-19.html

In letters sent to Rice and Tenet last week, Waxman wrote that the panel has interviewed and conducted depositions with other former officials such as Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Carl Ford, former assistant secretary of state for Intelligence and Research. More interviews are expected over the coming weeks, the letters noted, and “the CIA and State Department have begun to provide important documents to the Committee.”

Waxman told The Hill that the panel still intends to hold a public hearing with Rice at a still-undetermined date, adding that the information from Tenet and others will help make the committee’s questions “more pointed.” He also said that the panel will also issue a report, but “that’s a ways off.”




What are the consequences of being cited in contempt of Congress? Who decides who is in contempt and what the penalties will be?
http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly9.htm

Contempt of Congress is initiated by a resolution reported from the affected congressional committee which can cite any individual for contempt. The resolution must then be adopted by the House or Senate. If the relevant chamber adopts the contempt resolution recommended by one of its committees, the matter is referred to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution. The U.S. Attorney may call in a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict and prosecute. If prosecuted by the courts and found guilty of contempt, the punishment is presently set at up to one year in prison and/or up to $1,000 in fines.

The last high-ranking federal official to be held in contempt was Anne Gorsuch, then administrator of the EPA, in 1982. The House voted the citation for her refusal to provide requested documents concerning the Superfund to the Energy and Commerce Committee then chaired by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Prosecution of her case was halted after the Reagan White House negotiated an agreement to allow access to the papers.

Contempt resolutions have most often been issued in two categories: (1) for reasons of refusing to testify or failing to provide Congress with requested documents or answers, and (2) bribing or libeling a Member of Congress. Contempt citations are limited to matters which relate to legislative purposes and which fall within the affected committee's established jurisdiction.

Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld the contempt authority of Congress, most notably Anderson v. Dunn, decided in 1821. Congress sets the procedures and punishment for contempt by statute. The current contempt statute (2 USC 192) was adopted in 1857, and has been amended several times over the years. This statute also limits the issuance of contempt citations to matters which relate to legislative purposes and which fall within the affected committee's established jurisdiction as delegated to it by the full House or Senate.

The adminstration will drag this whole thing through the courts until the SCOTUS decides 5-4 that Congress doesn't have the authority to issue these subpoenas. We can add to that, the fact that the DOJ will be taking their time to really do anything!

In the meantime Bush and Cheney will continue to destroy the Constitution, until those "Rights" are flushed down a toilet.

Perhaps what Congress should do, is to conduct multiple attacks:

1. Subpoena all of the records

2. File Articles of Impeachment against both Cheney and Gonzales, because they won't have the time to fight the subpoenas, as both will be spending all of their waking moments trying to figure out what kind of defense to put up.

Remember, the investigation that goes into an impeachment doesn't have to be fast, afterall a good investigator takes their time and makes sure that all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted,
before they present the evidence.

but they will have to escalate their demands with unified action in resolution form.

I don't see any Articles coming without the formation of a Special Committee first.

Did Congress declare war "on terrorism"? A presidential PR stunt is hardly an excuse for overriding the constitution of the United States.

going to report much of what the dems are doing. they prefer to say the dems are doing nothing. THAT IS NOT TRUE AND WE CANNOT FALL PREY TO THE LIES! most of the corporate msm is trying to make the dems look ineffectual for the '08 elections and some of the base is enabling them . . . including some here.

i keep remembering the closet conyers had to use for the dsm 'hearings' and how he was treated (thank goodness for c-span!). conyers, waxman and many others have not given up the fight . . . they have just begun it. please don't undermine them. there may well be dem congress critters who do not deserve our continued support but let's not let down those who are truly doing the peoples' business.

ellen fl

to watch Henry Waxman at work. It would clear up a lot of misconceptions about Dems in general IMO.

massive than Watergate by several orders of magnitude, it was reassuring to read that Nixon's impeachment didn't supervene until more than a year after the investigations.

that will lead to impeachment. I say, "stealthily," because everyone is wondering how genuine their efforts are when: (1) Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table - her words; and, (2) all this talk of using oversight powers to embarrass the presidency feels like someone is throwing us a bone.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Suddenly withdraw.

“Are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch? Are you tearing up the pea patch? Are you hollering down the rain barrel? Are you scraping around the bottom of the pickle barrel? Are you sitting in the catbird seat?” --Thurber

Subpoenas with no enforcement have a hard time forcing a "Constitutional showdown"

And as for all those Republican standing together against Clinton, weren't they standing together on an Impeachment?

*Congress passed a resolution by a simple majority and got the papers they wanted the next day

Them Texas-style "Showdowns" only work when you bring your gun.

from Congress? An embattled AG serving under a White House who will throw him underneath their wheels to protect themselves?

If we have such a strong case, we should build it and hold firm as we pressure them. That's what's worked in the past. Just because there's going to be a flurry of predictable resistance doesn't mean we won't prevail if we persist, especially if we press for an independent investigator of Gonzales himself. Keep pressing for the documents . . . The administration is a lame-duck weakling, and our Democrats are squeezing them.

I have given up hope for Impeachment or any serious addressing of the OUTRAGES committed by the Bush Administration by this Congress. They simply are NOT going to do it. The clock has already run out. Expect the excuses of "Don't have the votes" to change to "Its campaign season, and we don't want the public to view this as a witch hunt!" Any day now.

Like the Abu-Ghraib Senate investigations, a small number of little fishes may be showcased, but the "Investigations" will go nowhere and be consumed with posturing for the cameras and little else. Like Abu-Ghraib and 9-11 investigations, the American Public will not even be allowed to see the WHOLE TRUTH.

I would like to see a movement requesting Democrats to pledge to continue Investigations after 2008, and Prosecutions where laws were broken, but I'm not holding my breath.

In 2009, expect a replay of 1993 where the Democratic Party closed ranks with the Republican leadership in a "spirit of bi-partisan forgiveness" :puke: to "heal the nation"! :puke:

The REAL criminals will go free.
The Republican Money Machine will be replaced by a Democratic Money Machine to give the voters the illusion of choice.
The system will be protected.
:(


Sorry, I don't share your enthusiasm.
I want to see something REAL.

we just have to keep pressing at every obstinacy

6 months but also over the last six years. There is a clear pattern.

I have this sinking feeling that the "heal the nation" "let bygones be bygones" "we're on a new horse now" folks are going to reign supreme after 2008. The pardons will have been issued and no matter how angry we get, it'll be over.

or, do you think it's alright to just ignore them or denigrate them just because they haven't yet led to the impeachment you think is ultimately preferable?

Why should those actions already underway (with the full support of the leadership) which intend to uphold and defend against the very violations of law you say you're concerned with, just stand or fall on their own without support? What other issue that we advocate only gets support from us if it ultimately succeeds?

,...possible because of political considerations.

Otherwise, I certainly acknowledge that the Democratic Party, as a whole, has done a great deal to shine light on this egregious administration.

However, I guess I do beat to my own drum (these days) because I am absolute in my belief that this administration must be subject to the rule of law and held accountable for its abuses and crimes against this nation, its democratic process, its people, and international/human rights. I understand the Democrats are in a somewhat tenuous position in terms of prospective success in fulfilling the foregoing. Nevertheless, I believe it is their duty to do so.

I'm not for just jumping in with an omnibus set of charges presented from a loaded committee without the benefit of some outside prosecution or investigation producing the evidence to take away any tinge of partisanship.

There is LITERALLY a ton already available,...and that's WITHOUT utilizing impeachment proceedings as a vehicle toward real justice via extensive discovery of all kinds of crimes.

I genuinely appreciate the extensive hearings being conducted on numerous matters because they do reveal,...some (in spite of the ambiguous bullshit testimony consistently offered) evidence. However, if the oath to uphold OUR Constitution and the rule of law is fulfilled, not only Democrats but also Republicans and Independents will go after this criminal cabal.

Sure, some outside independent counsel would be fabulous but ain't going to happen because the cabal won't let it happen. Congress is all that's left to uphold the law. They have the burden. Shit. I'd do it if the law allowed it. I can't. ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THIS NATION.

It IS their responsibility, their duty, their sworn obligation.

On edit: the FIRST PRIORITY of Congress should to be CUT OFF TAXPAYER-FUNDED CABAL-SPONSORED PROPAGANDA. SHUT THE FUCKIN WHIG AND OSI (or whatever name it goes by these days) AND ALL PRIVATE PR CONTRACTS DOWN!!!! Attach Col. Sam Gardiner's 10/03 report as justification).

and accountability and move directly to a case which only our party assumes is open and shut?

It amazes me how one can argue about the need for these hearings and the committee work and then jump to say the product of them should be the subject of an immediate impeachment without further work or process.

And, any Articles presented which are built entirely in Congress without some slam-dunk case will not get the support needed for conviction. There is absolutely no need (save the frustration of the critics of due process) to jump out with articles of impeachment which we well know wouldn't elicit any different result in this Congress than the balance of power suggests it would. That's why there has to be the weight of an outside prosecution, and hopefully a conviction, And, with the help of a John Dean type, we can bring the pressure needed for the accountability everyone is hollering for.

But, I think if we go off half-cocked, with just the weight of our one party behind the effort, it will result in something less than the justice that proponents are caterwauling about.

What?

With respect to John Dean,...I'm pretty damn sure he'd agree that there is all ready MORE than sufficient evidence to begin impeachment proceedings. I'll bet he'd even agree with my position that those proceedings could be successfully utilized to DISCOVER all the other evidence of crimes that are not in the public eye.

I don't know why you are asserting that I am attempting to "sidestep other important functions of justice". Why are you making that assertion? What did I say that supports your assertion against me.

It took a heck of a lot more time for Congress to catch on to Nixon after the burglary than we've spent here. And hearings are ALREADY underway. What we need now is someone to directly implicate Bush or Cheney in a CRIME.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors. That's what we have to prove. That's no cakewalk.

All this present balance of republicans and Democrats will do with something like the Kucinich document is produce a party line vote. There has to be something MORE than what is in front of us to move the process toward conviction. I really don't see the value in jumping past the efforts already underway and assuming Congress can produce a case that will provide the justice everyone is looking for. I prefer an outside prosecution/investigation first, then a Special Committee . . .

If you are sincere about John Dean, you would know he has proferred convincing arguments that, evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was presented some time ago by this disgusting cabal, CERTAINLY SUPPORTING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

I still believe that impeachment proceedings would be the VERY BEST MEANS OF EXPOSING ANY/ALL CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES,...and, I will remain in my absolute position (a very rare thing for me) that, the only way to save a nation created to be an enduring democratic institution, is to be COMMITTED in the enforcement of the Constitution, the rule of law and an oath of office to protect both.

there was a 'Watergate Committee' first . . .

Reuters has the story, but it's small potatoes as wire services go. What few local newspapers reporting it are either using their own resources, or citing the Washington Post coverage. Until AP stops whoring for the White House (their coverage of the Cheney story yesterday, quoting Republicans with "Let the courts decide if there's something wrong here" and "I think there are some legal interpretations," is downright laughable), this story won't be heard.

...oh wait...they haven't yet? Sorry, I thought by the tone of your post that "our" Dems had found their spines....silly me...

backing of the repubs the dems affect little since they can't veto bills, impeach him, etc. The WH knows that the repubs ultimately don't want to impeach a repub president. It might hurt their chances for the only thing they care about..re-election. So they keep pushing the envelope and expanding their powers. The media is generally ignoring it all, and very few people pay attention. By the time this country wakes up we could very well be beyond repair. Anyone who still thinks who is in the office of the president doesn't matter is beyond ignorant. I heard someone talking today about they will vote for Nader if anyone other than Kucinich is the Dem nomination as a protest vote. Honest to God! I give up. Do what they will. People are stupid and going to allow it.

As my old friend Guy Washington used to say, "Good always leaves, but bad comes to stay."

can do to counter a rogue branch of government, besides impeachment. Haven't seen much of them either.

When we get that, there will be nothing to complain about. Democrats being "underway" isn't good enough anymore.

until their bullshit sticks somewhere.

Why can't we manage some support for the things we all say we care about. How about promoting their efforts and demanding accountability from the White House with all of the effort that's put around here into bemoaning every step Democrats take which is short of impeachment? Where the hell is the concern and support for those levers of accountability which elevated this debate with evidence provided from committee?

Then when will they hear appeals?

and their White House fugitives, *instead of denouncing every thing that falls short of the ultimate outcome of our legislators' efforts.

What the heck is this standoffishness about anyway? A grudge match? Congress is producing the evidence we are all debating action on and some act as if we should just fold those cards and go directly the stacked deck, whether we have a full hand or not.

The only indicator we have is contemporary precedent. Watergate and Whitewater. Some aspects have naturally evolved since then, pro and con. Any one can look at those examples and see that there was the weight of an outside prosecution which compelled cooperation (from whatever quarters), which compelled Congress to (eventually) act. We could argue that the process should go faster, speed on to a dubious end, but I can't imagine that those so exuberant about obtaining justice would prefer a rush to a probable partisan rejection to a progression to something prosecutable to galvanize Congress to support a unified response to the White House crimes uncovered.

Takes time. ANY effective prosecution does, especially a political one.

or arrested? Impeachment would take one day. A simple majority vote in the House and it is done. We don't have the votes within our own party. This is something I will never forget.

but this is a political process, as well as a function of law, in which it is necessary to build support to advance your cause. I see no reason to abandon the efforts of the Democrats in Congress who are working to investigate right now. We can build on those investigations and develop our case without bulling forward to the end. I still think an outside prosecution would carry more weight and effect than a partisan set of charges produced entirely in Congress with primarily Democrat support alone -- but they are pressing forward and deserve attention and support, not derision *just because there isn't enough of a consensus to move toward impeachment yet.

is off the table and these investigations are a substitute to placate the base and to try and build political support in their misreading of the public to skittish democrats running for president.

without having every move they make seen as a pretext to some bias to impeach.

When, and if, an impeachment resolution advances, it will benefit from the apparent impartiality of the leadership and provide enough of a defense against the inevitable charges of partisanship. But, you can't look at the efforts in committee and conclude that our majority is complicit in some scheme to do only enough to 'placate the base'.

And, 'skittish Democratic *candidates' :kick: operate on their own. There's no organized cover for any of them coming from Congress right now.

The leadership, anyway, reflects the majority in the caucus. They operate at the pleasure of the majority of Democrats in Congress. When there is enough support and enthusiasm for a move to impeachment in Congress, they will move the leadership on that issue; or move them out of the way.

the offenses by this administration. The real question is why is that? I say let's throw the baloney aside

you can poll their reasons yourself. Question is, will you accept their explanations or suppose your own?

Anyone can step up an d call for a move to impeach. The leaders can, of course, and move independently to that. But, at this point, it appears they would be doing that without the acquiescence of the majority of those they organize with to gauge and measure whatever support exists for their actions.

Most who have spoken of their reluctance to move to impeach have cited the lack of support among legislators as the reason. The just don't want to push forward without that support. In an impeachment, the amount of support determines the outcome in the political equation that we call a verdict. I won't account for those who say the process itself, without a conviction, would be worth the effort. I just disagree.

I think they want to see a case which has a reasonable amount of certainty it will prevail, in public opinion and in galvanizing enough bipartisan support in this Congress to convict before they commit to the course to impeach.

The answer to that should be obvious. A lot of things have been sacrificed for their philosophy of whatever it is. I think all that many of us fought for for so long (such as the case of my family being rights for the developmentally disabled) that are on their way out or have fallen because they didn't stand up to extreme justices taking the bench. I feel the least they could do is fight for constitutional checks and balances and the rule of law applying to the top of the executive branch. There really isn't anything left to compromise away.

... If issuing subpoenas that are universally ignored is "doing" something, then I suppose they're on the job. If, however, it's results you're interested in, what are they actually "doing?"

Nobody in the administration takes them seriously. Nobody will testify under oath. Most of them don't even bother to show up. And the Dems best shot seems to be trying to cut deals that would allow these felons to testify in private, not under oath, and with no written or recorded transcripts. And even that lame nonsense is greeted with howls of derision by the administration.

Congressional Dems popularity is hovering right around that of Bush himself. They were voted in to clean up the Iraq horror story and rein in BushCo's outrages. They've done neither.

They're in serious danger of being perceived as ineffectual laughingstocks, which is one of the few things politicians can never recover from. Buggering altar boys or chronic alcohol abuse? No sweat; just do the teary eyed televised atonement gig and spend six months at club rehab. But being revealed as a feather-headed bumbler who gets no respect? No way.

So this death by a thousand cuts approach is producing exactly nothing, except further evidence that democrats wouldn't know how to deal with this administration if the answer bit them on their collective ass.

Rather than death by a thousand cuts, I'm more of an off-with-their-heads type. Just a neat, clean, final thrust of the axe and, presto, end of problems. Figuratively speaking, of course.

In practice, however, there is enough evidence in the public domain, no investigations required, to haul all their treasonous asses into federal court and charge them with multiple high crimes, some of which carry the death penalty. But no, let's be polite and civilized about this. We're not barbarians, after all.

Meanwhile, the civilian death toll in Iraq stands at more than 650,000, and we have the unmitigated gall to claim we're not barbarians?


Jesus fucking christ...

wp

And, this Congress has MANY functions that intend to lead to the accountability you want, including impeachment, but that's not as automatic in our Democracy as you may want, especially not in a political institution.

Those protections that the minority or anyone else has the advantage of as the majority prosecutes are more than mere civilization, they are necessary functions of that justice we seek. These constitutional protections serve to restrain our government and its elected representatives as they perform their duties, to act in a manner which preserves the promises of democracy and provides for free expression, debate, and advocacy, and representation in our political and legal system.

Without these constitutional protections, it is impossible for the government to act decisively on the assumption it has the full weight of the American people behind any decision it might make.

It sounds like you're arguing that Constitutional protections are there for the innocent and the guilty, and that these *alleged* felons deserve the presumption of innocence and the ponderous pace of due process just as anyone else accused of criminal behavior in this country.

Problem is, that's soooo 20th century. Between outrages like the patriot act and the military commissions act, along with various presidential directives such as the two Bush signed recently that grant the executive branch dictatorial powers in an "emergency" -- and of course Bush gets to define what constitutes an emergency -- there are really very few significant Constitutional protections left.

The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments are basically null and void. Habeas corpus is DOA. Posse Comitatus is under serious pressure with the presence in three states of Blackwater, BushCo's private enforcement arm. The 14th (due process and equal protection) and 15th (voting rights) Amendments are on life support.

I didn't commit these outrages, nor did you. BushCo did this, with the complicity of a demented Republican congressional majority and a Supreme Court that stopped the Florida recount because -- get this -- the results might be prejudicial against Bush's claim of victory. And BushCo will continue its merry little descent toward fascism until it's forced to stop.

Who's going to stop them, and when? If not the Congressional democrats, and damn soon, then I submit there is no countervailing force strong enough to keep this country from becoming a fascist dictatorship -- and you could make a pretty good case that it already is, minus a few small details like activating detention camps and staging torch-lit rallies at which the good Americans can express their hatred of liberalism.

So I get back to the point of my previous post. This isn't some fucking parliamentarian game, with victory going to the side that adheres most closely to the rules. This is the death rattle of the republic and somebody in a position of power among the alleged opposition better damn well start taking things seriously.


wp

that to bring our leadership down is some moral imperative which won't bear due process of law . . .

BushCo has KILLED due process, along with the rest of the former Constitutional protections I mentioned earlier. There is no due process left to venerate as an unassailable totem of a functional representative democracy.

And unless Democrats start taking their role as the opposition party seriously and begin fighting everything this hideous flock of vultures stands for, at every single opportunity, 24/7, and damn the consequences, they will likely be the last Democratic majority in congress for a very long time.

This is about more than keeping up proper appearances to advance their miserable political careers; they have an opportunity to salvage what's left of the rule of law, never mind the rule of actual justice, before BushCo decides to pull the final plug on what's become a virtual democracy at best, and a borderline fascist dictatorship in many respects.

I don't know... I'm a stickler for human rights and freedoms; a government that acts as if it knows and acknowledges that we, the poor slobs without high-dollar tax-avoidance accountants, pay its salary; and a country in which every fucking square inch is a free speech zone. Anything else is unacceptable, and is to be resisted unrelentingly.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of process and proper procedure when dealing with fascists. Why they hell should I care if their needs are served? Why should I care if, for example, Cheney's orange jumpsuit is a little tight around his elephantine mid-section? And why should I care if the people who tore this country into pieces small enough that we may never find them all suffer the very fate they're inflicting on "illegal combatants," "extraordinary renditions," and every single mother and kid in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'm just not that compassionate, and what compassion I do have I reserve for those who actually deserve it.


wp

or the rest of the constitutional provisions.

So who's the guilty party? If not Bush -- and I use the name in the generic sense, since I doubt he has the acuity to understand the difference between due process and due diligence -- then who killed 3/5 of the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, and the rest of the litany, including due process? And it's dead, make no mistake -- and if it's not dead for you, then it's certainly dead and decomposing for our "detainees" in the dungeons of the American gulag.

So who do we have to shoot or prosecute to get a little justice and a little damn accountability for these monstrous crimes against the American people, not to mention the rest of the planet?


wp

and, if it's a guilty verdict you want for Bush, that's what the hearing and committee process is there to enable and ensure. It looks to me like that's moving forward. I think we should support and defend those efforts along with any other, more direct approaches we might advocate -- especially while we are working for the consensus needed in this Congress to ratchet up the pressure, force accountability, and move to a conviction for whatever we uncover and establish the evidence for; within and without the institution..

this is from a note I posted a week or so ago on an impeachment pro or con thread. Since I still believe every word, and it's easier then retyping, I'll paste it here:


I have a feeling that if the American people were actually allowed to hear even a partial list of the outrages perpetrated in their names with their tax dollars, the votes to convict would miraculously show up in the form of ass-chewed GOP Senators whose constituents have told them to vote for conviction or look for another job next election. And impeachment, even if ultimately unsuccessful, addresses three key issues that won't be dealt with any other way:


- There must be accountability for running a pure rogue state, starting with grand theft election (two counts); shoving the Constitution through the shredder; invading a sovereign nation on phony intel; permitting the single worst act of terrorism on their watch, and with -- best evidence suggests -- their complicity; torturing disposable little brown people in off-shore hell-holes using taxpayer-funded sadists; outing a covert CIA operative who was actually working on tracking WMDs in real terrorist networks (unlike the bullshit they pawned off about Saddam); putting cronies in key positions, where many survived long enough to do serious damage ala "Great job, Brownie" and his inspired leadership during the Katrina disaster; willful environmental destruction by a) giving tax breaks to Hummer buyers, b) refusing to sign any international treaty or protocol that would "compromise" the American lifestyle by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, c) screwing up the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, eliminating nearly all EPA oversight and enforcement, and d) gagging NOAA's leading climatologists lest they speak of the human causes of global climate change. And that's just a small, random sample of their high crimes and treasonous policies.

Their idiotic incompetence goes back even further, to when they were taking delivery on several hundred pieces of a P-3 Orion they had been using to run surveillance ops on China, even back to that great day in the Pacific when they let one of their obscenely rich "contributors" take the wheel on a nuclear submarine, surfacing directly under a Japanese fishing boat and killing the first of perhaps a million of the usual disposable brown people.


- There must be precedent set through the impeachment, conviction and imprisonment of this truly awful pack of thieves and traitors, lest future fascists with money, an organization and the desire to rule by truncheon and torture -- or by exportation to the detention camps of the American gulag for a little political re-education -- tries to take up where BushCo left off.


- Call this one "preemptive impeachment," because it keeps them busy with legal matters when they would otherwise be spending their time as they usually do: figuring out new and ever-more damaging ways to screw up the country and the rest of the planet. I'd rather see these mass murders sweating over the latest evidence disclosure all night with their $4,000 a day lawyers on the edge of panic, than think of them giggling over the latest Rovian propaganda coup; the latest contracts for Iraqi oil signed and ready to further enrich the same bastards who populated Dickie's energy task force; the latest software from the fine engineers at Diebold, which virtually guarantees that a new undetectable, untraceable, unfixable vote-flipping bug will ship in time for the 2008 elections.


So, in summary: Accountability in the form of serious jail time (which is a break, given that several of their offenses are capital crimes). Send a message to future fascists of America that the same fate faces them if they decide to implement Right Wing Coup v2.0 Keep them busy enough to buy the planet a little time.

And what's the worst thing that could happen? After a lengthy process during which the entire world learns the details behind the overt sleaze and malevolence, they skate on impeachment, only to be rounded up by federal marshalls and indicted for crimes ranging from RICO violations to high treason. And finally, the icing on the cake, they get an all-expenses-paid junket to The Hague, where the furious members of the international community, having endured eight endless years of these lethal swine, have their chance for a little revenge.

Anyway, impeachment now, federal trials later, The Hague later still. I really don't think all this is survivable, particularly for an aging, snarling, gout-infested cyborg with a bad ticker.


wp

to some kind of prosecution, can't be translated into much more in an impeachment, no matter how much publicity. I really don't think that we should go to the mat right now, with what's been generated by our best efforts so far, and expect much of a different outcome from the mob of republicans who would block a conviction there just as they have enabled the administration overall.

I think we should press the subpoenas and continue to build our cases in committee, where I think there's been a great deal of activity recently in providing much of the revelations which are compelling more and more folks to call for action. I don't think we've reached the threshhold in that effort to jump to an impeachment.

I think it still needs some work . . . and a little luck of some more revelations which center on Bush and Cheney would help. And, I think we need the benefit of some sort of outside prosecution or investigation which would take away any tinge of partisan ship and help galvanize a unified response from Congress to the WH crimes they uncover and evidence.

We're only six months into this new Congress and my head is spinning from the hearings we've had since Jan, 2007. Remember just last year when we were going through another session with NO OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER? Remember how the 9-11 widows had to beg...beg for investigations?

I am totally okay with what the Dems are doing. I am even giving some love to DLC-Rahm Emanuel for suggesting congress defunds Cheney. There are still some skittish Democratic members of House/Senate but oddly enough, the disgusted Republicans are emboldening them all. I say, bring on more investigations and supoenas and throw the Supremes in with it. Let's do this thing.

puke motto: just say no. and run out the clock. and buy some property in paraguay.

(by the way--how's the progress coming on getting rid of all the electronic voting machines? i haven't heard anything on that in awhile.)

I hope to be proven wrong.

the effort. These committees and investigations deserve the support of those who claim to be so concerned with upholding the rule of law, no matter where the investigations ultimately lead. One thing which is evident, most of the revelations we've seen are being generated from the committees' work.

I don't think it will serve any cause to hold this administration accountable to just sit back and expect these efforts to achieve ultimate success without getting ourselves involved in actively supporting them and advocating for compliance with the subpoenas and the like from the WH, just like we've done with every other challenge from the opposition.

Some impeachment proponents, though, look like they are content with standing and watching to see if they'll fall short just to say I told you so. For my part, if we do manage an impeachment, you won't see me here second-guessing that move. We work with what we have available and make the best of it if we want our concerns to advance. We take responsibility for preserving and defending the investigations, hearings, subpoenas already underway. Since when did it become alright to just stand back and let efforts which intend to address our concerns just stand or fall by virtue of their own support?

.

it's been done short of court action in the past, with this very administration

there's a lot at stake in that investigation for New Yorkers

well christine, maybe they didn't have to fucking BE heroes, maybe they could have been mothers or fathers or regular people if you just told the truth.

I posted about a similar topic here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3331389#3333079
(see posts 10,14 and 22).

Daily Kos mentions it as well:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/22/131834/647

Now is the time to stick together!

to get enough support (so far) behind any one way to get Bush to end the occupation.

There are two fronts here: the public perception and the action being taken.

I do not allege Dems in Congress are doing nothing. In fact I believe they are following a very methodical approach that will eventually yield paydirt in uncovering and exposing Republican corruption.

I do allege that Dems are reluctant to take the 'bold' approach in letting the public know exactly what they are doing and why.

It takes both. Members of Congress willing to act AND support of the people for those actions.

Pelosi and Reid need more joint press conferences where they speak directly to the actions being taken and why.

If 41% of the public still believes SAddam was involved in the planning and carrying out of 911, then you know that there has be to an 'education process' for the people. Once the people are sufficiently informed and outraged, the actions that must be taken become much easier. We cannot rely on the MSM to do this.