Skip to main content

View Diary: Waxman targets the "phantom" Email Contractor (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  House Majority (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, jamess

    The House doesn't need a "supermajority". It needs only a simple majority: 50%+1, or 218. Democrats currently occupy 233 seats (53.6% of 435), because we voted them those seats to stop Bush.

    Wrong facts like that get in the way of public opinion seeing just how doable impeaching Bush/Cheney actually is.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:44:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  thanks for the correction (0+ / 0-)

      you are right about bringing the charges, simple majority.

      But 67 Senators are needed to Convict of those charges though, which is what I was thinking of in that comment.

      With enough public outcry, nationwide, I believe both Majorities are possible.

      I would like to see the bums impeachment AND CONVICTED too!

      Without the Conviction part, being very PROBABLE, then I would Only support Censure, as Feingold has called for.

      thanks for the feedback DocGonzo

      •  Why Just Censure? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wonmug, KenBee, jamess

        We're mostly on the same page.

        Why bother with censure? What on Earth does that do, except give everyone in the government a way to say they did something, though they did nothing? It's a diversion. An end run diversion.

        The impeachment hearings themselves would paralyze a lot of their conspiracies. Lots of coconspirators, especially among the Congress, would stop out of fear that now there's consequences. An impeachment trial in the Senate would go even further. The pressure on the conspiracy would paralyze it, force lots more witnesses and evidence out. It might not force Cheney or certainly Bush to resign without coming within a few votes to convict (probably more than just 5 Republicans), but the collateral results would be very productive. And would likely snowball. So, in the political logic that forced Nixon to resign, but let Clinton stay (because there was nothing more to expose), one or more of Bush/Cheney would be pressured to resign just to stop the damage before it exposed even more than the impeachment covers.

        And then of course there's justice. We don't indict only criminals with enough evidence before indictment that will guarantee conviction. Impeachment is indictment of officials with immunity. So unless we're equating indictment with conviction, we owe it to the people, to the Constitution, and even to the impeached officials to let them defend themselves in the prescribed forum. Or we can just admit that we don't take any risks in this country any more, even when "safety" means the gravest danger.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:07:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks again (0+ / 0-)

          you make very persuasive arguments, Doc,
          lol, you should be a lawyer

          I had been thinking of Censure, in the same way you described the Indictment phase -- that they would have to defend themselves or bear the "brand" of being scroundels.

          But after listening to you, I realize Censure would most likely not bring that result, only Indictment as you say, obliges a defense.

          Great point, about putting the Bush Machine in gird-lock, lol, I hadn't thought of that before. That almost makes it worth it, right there!

          My main worry, however is a pragmatic one, (which is probably the same worry of those in Congress) -- WITHOUT a Conviction the Democrats will be "branded" as obstructionists, etc, by the Corporate Media, and the Wing Nuts spinnners.

          Not that, that "brand" would bother me -- it would be a "badge of honor" worth the price of [REALLY] protecting the Constitution!

          But that "labeling" would surely be more than enough to be spun into another GOP Win in 2008. Look how easily they used the "slogans" of "cut-and-run" and "don't switch horses" in 2004, to convince the Country to "stay the course"

          Surely a "failed" Impeachment attempt, would be more than enough, for the GOP to continue their "Reign of Fear and Greed."

          Those are among my "non-purist" concerns, selfish I suppose. But I REALLY want to Take our Country back in 2008. The Future on so many fronts, depends on it.

          thanks again for your thoughts, I will have to mull them over some more!

          •  Thanks for Listening (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee, jamess

            Lately I've been despairing of people's ability to listen at all. Everyone seems so dug in. The fear is so deep all around that no one seems able to think straight. I'm naturally argumentative, so I keep on. Probably foolishly myself, since people usually just shut down rather than come around. But I like to think that maybe the info at least registers, so later, when they're not actually conflicting with me, they might reconsider.

            Every once in a while, someone does feed back that they're thinking about it. Makes it seem worthwhile. Better than doing nothing.

            As for impeachment, failing to impeach Clinton on BS didn't really hurt Republicans. Sure, they lost a few seats, but they'd been declining since they first took the majority in 1994. And they were working with BS. If Democrats can't convict Bush/Cheney on the charges we all can see are completely correct, just because there aren't enough Democratic senators to vote over the closed ranks of Republicans, I can't think of better material for Democrats to use to campaign for more senators.

            The fact is that impeachment is justice. Americans respect justice. We're hungry for it. If Democrats don't even work for the justice we all know should slam down on Bush/Cheney, then we will all see that Democrats really are what Republicans say they are. And if we see that Democrats at least applied justice to try for conviction, then all we'll have lost is our illusion that Republicans can be beaten with mere justice.

            Then the beatings will have to begin :).

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:35:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i agree except for one small problem (0+ / 0-)

              the MSM took on Clinton, too

              Will they take on Bush and Cheney, as vigorously?

              I doubt it given how much they let them slide now.

              There's a reason why we call it CORPORATE Media,
              because they got billions at stake in Advertising Revenues etc.


              I'm am truly afraid of the Dems chances NOW, just because of the Media Factor (without Impeachment).

              I do agree though much of public is hungry for justice, and would respect the effort -- question is how many of them would be willing to watch CSpan to understand the proceeding, since I honestly doubt the Media will accurately explain it to them. (most still have no clue about what the Gonzo hearings were all about, the Media just parrots: "witch hunt", and so many people buy it, sad but true.)

              thanks again for the rationale though, more to think about here, it's a good thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site