Question for Dems

Run on Impeachment?

  • Yes we should impeach and it should be part of the rhetoric

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Yes we should impeach but no it shouldn't be part of the rhetoric

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • No we shouldn't impeach, but it should be part of the rhetoric

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • We shouldn't impeach and it shouldn't be part of the rhetoric

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • Total voters
    8
While not a dem let me chime in with a few concerns about this. First off Democrats have a chance to win the house although it is small. However they have almost no chance of even winning the senate.

Articles of impeachment only require a majority in the house so votes along partisan lines would be successful. However conviction under impeachment requires two-thirds of the senate. Remember that a Republican controlled senate did not convict President Clinton. There is little reason to believe that an impeachment of Bush or Cheney would be successful despite the evidence brought against him.
 
IHateGovernment said:
While not a dem let me chime in with a few concerns about this. First off Democrats have a chance to win the house although it is small. However they have almost no chance of even winning the senate.

Articles of impeachment only require a majority in the house so votes along partisan lines would be successful. However conviction under impeachment requires two-thirds of the senate. Remember that a Republican controlled senate did not convict President Clinton. There is little reason to believe that an impeachment of Bush or Cheney would be successful despite the evidence brought against him.
Click to expand...
Which was my point. It must be considerable and have a large chance of Conviction. Otherwise it is a waste of money, time, and attention that I would prefer legislators spending elsewhere.
 
Bush could be the first president to be impeached after leaving office .
He wants his name to stand out in history and that could be why it will ;)
 
They can't impeach when he leaves office. They might be able to indict, but they cannot impeach.
 
I expect that after georgie and darth are gone and the congress goes back to demoncrat control that many dirty secrets will come out that might get Bush and dicky some time in the crossbar hotel.
 
uscitizen said:
I expect that after georgie and darth are gone and the congress goes back to demoncrat control that many dirty secrets will come out that might get Bush and dicky some time in the crossbar hotel.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt it, but you can dream if you wish.
 
uscitizen said:
I dunno billions are unacounted for in the Iraq mess....friends getting no bid contracts, etc...
Click to expand...
I just think that there are too many closets with that kind of skeleton for them to start bringing it up after he left office. I think you'll just have to satisfy yourself with his absense.
 
Perhaps Damo, time will tell. Another posibility to Bush historical fame. He has seroiusly pissed off a lot of people both domestic and foreign. He could go down in history as the first president assinated after leaving office as well.
Me ? I will be well satisfied if he just continues to damage his neocon associates .
 
I think that there are both impeachable offenses and indictable offences that Bush/cheney have committed.

If the evidence after oversite SHOWS SUCH, then I think after the change of many seats in the House in this 2006 election that the Republicans in the Senate may very well DO THEIR DUTY by law and the constitution, and vote to IMPEACH them both, if not for their constitutional duty, then to save their own rear ends, imho.

and yes, perhaps this is wishful thinking....and that is a real shame that it is, because we need to start showing our government that we are PAYING ATTENTION to the details and that there is no getting over on us anymore.
 
If the evidence after oversite SHOWS SUCH, then I think after the change of many seats in the House in this 2006 election that the Republicans in the Senate may very well DO THEIR DUTY by law and the constitution, and vote to IMPEACH them both, if not for their constitutional duty, then to save their own rear ends, imho.

Wrong terminology there Care. It is the house that impeaches. It is the Senate that conducts the impeachment hearings and can convict the President and/or VP.
 
I voted for no and not part of rhetoric... but the answer really7 depends on what the comming investigations turn up. If it is found that there is good evidence Bush committed a high Crime or other Misdermeanor I think (depending on the crime) he should be impeached.
 
Bush has already clearly broken the law. The wiretapping without warrants of american citizens is clearly illegal. The partisan lines issue is what will prevent his removal however.
 
yes, wrong wording...sort of...

The ENTIRE PROCESS is an impeachment process though...

the House holds hearings and grand jurys for impeachable offenses, then the House votes as to whether issues are impeachable or not requiring only a majority vote to go forward to the senate.

the Senate holds basically a court case, with the supreme court chief Justice residing over the hearing.... then after all is heard and all evidence is presented before the Senate, the Senate votes to impeach the President etc...requiring a 2/3's vote.

This is my understanding of Impeachment and all of these things are PART OF impeachment?
 
Before impeachment hearings there would likely be congressional investigations.

I think on the wiretapping issue there would be enough grey area that most would say it was a political judgement and not a breaking the law issue.
 
IHateGovernment said:
That is correct Care.
Click to expand...

Since I was intentionally politically illiterate and ignorant before the 2000 election and I did not pay attention at all really, to the Clinton Impeachment process, (was really extremely busy at work during this time period and I did not own a personal computer until 2000, unbelieveable but true),
I did not know how the impeachment of a president process worked until about two years ago....shameful, but in my mid 40's I did not even know it...!
 
Jarod said:
I voted for no and not part of rhetoric... but the answer really7 depends on what the comming investigations turn up. If it is found that there is good evidence Bush committed a high Crime or other Misdermeanor I think (depending on the crime) he should be impeached.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure we can think of something to come up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top