The table is set for impeachment, Mdm. Speaker. How about some service over here?

Despite Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi's stated removal of impeachment from the proverbial table, reasons exist for planting it squarely in place back on that table. The question of whether impeachment not only should but must be pursued by the House has been ignored entirely by the media, which gives Pelosi a pass on her decision simply because it is "politically wise" with an important election looming (if you call one year away "looming"). This, even with overwhelming evidence of the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration.

The reason I believe Pelosi is required to pursue impeachment: she took an oath (or affirmation) of office swearing to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. An oath of office isn't like the pledge of allegiance; having recited the pledge will not be used against one in any court of law if she later denies the under-Godness of the republic or the existence of liberty and justice for all. An oath is different. A witness in a criminal case takes an oath upon "swearing in" and becomes criminally culpable for lying, withholding information, or failure to appear. Taking an oath obliges one to uphold the terms and principles found within that oath. Ignoring an oath of office, either directly or by obfuscation, means an office holder has failed to uphold a binding agreement and is unfit to remain in office.

It is not Ms. Pelosi's impeachment that I would seek for failure to uphold her oath. But if she fails to see that an impeachment proceeding is fully warranted for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, she needs to be replaced as House Speaker and as a representative of the people next November. The people spoke without ambiguity last election: get us out of Iraq, and investigate the criminal cabal running roughshod over civil liberties, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Instead, Congress has rubber stamped the White House agenda, with only an occasional pronouncement of displeasure or unenforced subpoena.

The table is set for impeachment, Madame Speaker. How about some service over here?




Add your name to Congressman Wexler's call for impeachment -> http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/

Please stop beating it.

:eyes:

NGU.

....with 12 months left in the term
....during an election year
....with a one seat majority in the Senate
....with the overriding need for healthcare, energy and budget legislation
....with an underwhelming majority in the House
....with little or no buy-in from the minority party
....with Americans and Iraqis dying by the hundreds every month

How can this possibly be done?

Better to prosecute after they leave office, in my opinion. Less of a shield of executive privilege, little or no political obstruction from the GOP, etc.

Pelosi is waiting for Bush to leave office till she holds him accountable. :eyes:

Now, tell me again how impeachment is going to work. Don't forget the part about getting 67 Senators to vote for conviction.

Impeachment is not the same thing as conviction.

Are you suggesting that there should be no impeachment until we can be assured of a conviction?

:eyes:

NGU.

wash floors or do windows.

And I've heard Harry Reid is no better.

It's so hard to find good public servants these days.

but introducing the articles of impeachment is up to Pelosi.

"...to conduct hearings. This is a dangerous idea, as it signals to future presidents that after the third year of their term, they're effectively immune from serious inquiry. No President or Vice President should have such immunity. The Constitution does not include a statute of limitations."

- Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)

NGU.

do everything they can to subvert the Constitution 'cause it's a bad time to hold impeachment hearings. Especially if they're not running for re-election.

Edit: The Congress still needs to do their job even when a bunch of them are up for re-election.

How wide of an Impeachment Window® will the next Democratic president be afforded? Something tells me the caution Dems now apply would be kicked downstairs with loud laughter if even one impeachable offense were to be perceived or contrived by the rethugs.

"This administration has obstructed our agenda since we took the majority. There is little reason to think that if we avoid hearings, we will suddenly find ourselves in an easier position. In fact, there is good cause to believe the opposite - that if we avoid hearings, we will STILL be obstructed. Such an outcome would be tragic."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/31/111617/85/837/428339

NGU.

;-)

:evilgrin:

NGU.

It's clear that a lot of people, for whatever reason, don't WANT IT.
As far as it being too late, it isn't over till it's over, and the sooner you start, the sooner you finish.
So get started already.

Are there any remedies for congress members that abdicate their responsibilities to defend and protect the Constitution?