Are there enough votes to impeach...

these crazy people? If not, is it due to some blue dog democrats or some other reasons...Something has got to give everyday we wake up to another one of their crazy schemes, because from what I see they think that they can take over the world and everyone will bow to their whims...this is the reason why other countries are trying to get nuclear weapons they can see what they are getting away with here...

so make some noise . woot woot woot !!!
Impeach the creeps !

Ignored completely. next?

It has not been ignored. It has been polled multiple times.

Polls do not agree that there is a large public support for impeachment.

If they want to do more polls, bring it on!

I would like to see them.

--- There are not enough votes to impeach. You would need 67 senators, I believe,.. and currently they aren't there.

The House impeaches with a simple majority vote. The Senate convicts with 2/3 majority (or 67 votes).

Wonder how long it will take the 80 Senators who will vote against the troop "surge", to morph over into the "convict" category....

to the soldiers or over here, something that can't be explained away in which everyone knows without a doubt that it is because of bush and cheney's incompetence, and the outcry from the public will be so loud that they can't keep making up excuses for dumbass(RESPECTFULLY) :sarcasm:

1/20/2009
yoiu will never get to that number unless Bush invades Iran without congressional sanction.

House of Reps does. Senators vote on whether to convict...

You have to have specific evidence proving bribery, treason, or other high crimes or mideameanors against the state. Treason is closely defined by the Constitution. Even people who want Bush gone, and that may be two thirds of the Senate, wouldn't vote to impeach without a strong evidentiary case against him. And frankly, I wouldn't respect even a Democrat who voted to impeach without strong evidence.

I'm not saying Bush shouldn't be impeached, and I'm not saying they couldn't find enough evidence to impeach him, and I'm certainly not claiming he's not guilty of treason, bribery, and other high crimes (outing Valerie Plame, for instance). Quite the opposite, I'm sure he's guilty, and the circumstantial evidence demonstrates this. But I'm saying that so far there is not enough incontrovertible evidence specifically linking Bush to any impeachable offense. Investigations are what is needed, but even there, we need a direction to work. I want to see impeachment as much as, probably way more, than the proverbial next bloke, but at the same time I don't want Congress launching a broad scaled investigation trying to dig up some dirt while Bush further entrenches the military in Iraq and continues to frame Iran. His current actions need to be watched more closely than his past actions--the man has access to nukes, and a burning desire to use them.

Not to mention, if we impeach, and fail, Bush is stronger, and there is less chance to impeach him if clear evidence is found.

Find clear evidence, he'll get impeached. Open investigations. But don't make the mistake the Republicans made in the 90s. They were so hell-bent on impeaching Clinton they forgot to run the nation. That's part of why 9-11 happened. Democrats, for better and worse, have much more integrity than that.

I've read up a bit on the impeachments we've had to date. They've been SOOOOOO ridiculously partisan that I believe that the "high crimes and MISDEMEANORS" part of the right to impeach gives Congress extremely wide latitude. If you can impeach a man for lying about sex, or impeach a man for pushing for a cabinet member who hasn't been approved, or for trying to get rid of a cabinet member that Congress favors, I sense that IF we had enough of a majority, BushCo would be seriously GONE.

I agree with the person who said we don't have the numbers. I have no doubt that the Articles of Impeachment have already been written, and would be produced in heartbeat if the numbers were right.

So not enough senators believed the reasons for impeachment were justified. Second, Clinton wasn't impeached, technically, for "lying about sex," he was impeached for lying to a grand jury and for obstruction of justice. They tried to impeach him for lying about sex during the Paula Jones trial, but decided it did not meet the threshold of an impeachable offense, and for "violating his oath of office," but again decided it was not impeachable. And the impeachability of the offense was crucial to Clinton being exonerated, too. Even some who wanted Clinton gone voted not to impeach, because they felt that it was not proven that his "crimes" fit the terms of impeachment.

The Republicans pretended otherwise, but there is a specific defintion for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is a term used for political crimes against the state. So, outing Valerie Plame would fit the definition, since it was an attack on the government. Lying to start a war might be, since one could argue that Bush subverted the US government to fit his own needs. Lying before a grand jury about a civil trial would not be. Obstruction of justice--that was their strongest charge, but their weakest case.

Third point: In both prior impeachment cases (three counting Nixon's almost impeachment), the evidence wasn't the issue. With Clinton, they had plenty of evidence of what he said and did. They had two main questions: Did he committ a crime, and was the offense impeachable. Neither question was really answered "yes." With Bush, it's more like, we know he committed crimes, and we know they are impeachable, but we don't have the evidence to prove it.

Which is why they can't impeach him. You can't hold a trial and tell a jury "We all know he did it. We could find the evidence if we wanted to. Find him guilty." You have to find the evidence first.

To some it probably seems like splitting hairs.

But for it to get to the Senate, that means Congress clearly thought it was serious.

I am not very comfortable with the fact that lying about one's sex life to a grand jury justifies impeachment, even if not conviction. And frankly, I do not see what justice was being obstructed.

At this point, I just hope that some grounds can be found. And enough senators can be influenced to bring about conviction.

I think it is the height of wisdom to keep mum on Impeachment until there are enough Senate votes to convict. Even though it gives the American public the impression that Congress doesn't have the cahones for Impeachment.

Until there is at least a chance of conviction by the Senate, Democrats should just continue with their investigations until when or if they culminate in an overwhelming cry for impeachment. Unfortunately, in order to convict it will require the votes of a good number of Republican senators, the same people who get regularly trashed here for simply being Republicans.

... because it would look like he was vindicated and his policies validated.

I think it's possible that an unimpeached Bush is better than an impeached and acquitted Bush.

I think that is important

an impeachment without conviction will not stop the death of a single soldier.

But an acquittal will say to Bush and the nation that Bush was right all along and set a precedent for future presidents of just how far the boundary of presidential powers has moved.

... but right now it's still not very likely.

it might be better to have a beaten and battered Bush by the end of his presidency rather than go through an impeachment process that would end in no conviction, look like partisan political payback, and yes, appearing to result in a vindication of his policies. Current investigations could change this, but the clock may run out. Previous impeachments of both Clinton and Nixon wee the result of ongoing investigations. Currently, there been no investigations of Bush by Congress until the Democrats took control this month.

or worse...

Should we allow our rights to be trampled? Should we abdicate our rights by letting our representatives do nothing? They seem to have more influence on us than us them (which would indicate this isn't a true democracy).

If they vote to protect Bush with all the evidence we have, they will be thrown out of office.

... We may find that surprising, and we may not want to believe it, but that's what the evidence at hand says.

Few Senators will be punished for failing to do what the public has not yet asked them to do.

Lieberman will certain not vote to impeach, so he is a lost cause.

That leaves 50 Democrats and who knows if they would be united in voting to convict?

We'd still have to flip 10 Republics, and besides Hagel, Collins, and Snow... I don't know who else we'd find.

when he or she goes to trial in my city. Should the murderer or child molester just be released then without charges?

... if, in your prosecution, you are as unwilling to build a sufficient case to reach a conviction, as you are unwilling to build the proper case for removal of the president.

Luckily, in the case of an impeachment, we can ask the jurors (the Senate) in advance what they think and plan accordingly. That's why the analogy between impeachment and criminal trials of child molesters is weak.

go see a psychic, flip a coin, consult the tarot cards.....
It doesnt matter, they will never do it. The dems are scared of their own shadow. They are also too worried about messing up their 2008 opinion dynamic poll ratings. Maybe if less senators were running for pres in 2 years and more of them were working, something might actually get done.

Military officials arrest * and him throwing a tantrum to show how mentally unstable he is.

There will be soon enough.