Skip to main content

View Diary: Question (303 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Perhaps (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wonmug, zett, buhdydharma, cgirard

    But pre or post-impeachment investigations and hearings, which would presumably have revealed the grounds for it and made it hard to vote against it? It seems to me that they never held such investigations and hearings not because they didn't believe that such grounds existed and could be found, but because they didn't want them to be found, and force them to vote on it. They didn't want to be put in a position where they would have to vote one way or the other, so they refused to hold these investigations and hearings in the first place. This was never about the substance of impeachment, but the politics. The substance was always there, but the political will wasn't. To say that the votes weren't there is really to say that the will to vote on it wasn't there.

    Impeachment was effectively filibustered, by an implicit decision to not "bring it to the floor". Had it been allowed to happen, it might not have resulted in conviction, or even impeachment, but it would have put an awful lot of members of congress in a very difficult position politically. Which, of course, is why it was never allowed to happen.

    Congress effectively voted "No Comment" on impeachment.

    The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

    by kovie on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 05:41:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site