Skip to main content

All of the "politically pragmatic" excuses for NOT Impeaching George and the boys are the table! There is now no excuse for excusing their crimes.


As always when there has been some sort of trauma...and we have had eight years of so much trauma that we are all suffering a sort of PTSD, I think, there is the urge, the instinct to ...move on, to not dwell on the trauma. To put it behind us as fast as possible. But if we are to get over the PTSD, well...

Meteor Blades put it far more eloquently than I can:

.....that healing cannot occur, not wholly, unless the crimes that have brought our nation to such a ruinous condition - morally, economically and politically - are investigated thoroughly and a proper penalty imposed. Most importantly, the bent machinery that allowed, nay encouraged, those crimes must be rebuilt with safeguards so that they never occur again. That's not vengeance. It's justice. And true healing and progress cannot come about without it.

(For more background on the Never Again theme you might want to read MB's Palling Around with Terrorists as well, if you haven't already.)

Healing, Justice, Repairing the past before and as we move into the future. It is not vengeance, though if anyone ever deserved retribution it is they and I am not without that impulse by a long shot, it is about doing the right thing. It is about being a people and a nation and a world that does the right thing. Retribution and revenge are not the important things here, reclamation, reparation and the Rule of Law are.

There is no doubt that they are guilty, none.

Of all of the laws, treaties, conventions and just plain moral codes they have violated, and they have violated nearly all of them, the one thing that stands out and the one thing that there is a smoking gun on is...torture.

From the Washington Post in October, when it was obscured by the election:

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.

Guilty. Guilty of the most heinous of crimes. Beyond doubt, beyond question. The only question that does remain is...are they beyond justice? Can WE allow them to be beyond justice?

No one else is going to do this, it is up to us, up to the bloggers to push for justice, to push against pardons, and to push for prosecution.

To do so we need to make our case. We need to make a list of their crimes, and we need to present it solidly, lucidly and undeniably, free of too much rhetoric and backed up with facts and links.

There is a smoking gun on torture, certainly enough of one to demand the most thorough investigations possible, including a Special Prosecutor or an Independent Commission to investigate and expose the crimes of the Bush Administration. But we have to make a case, the best, most persuasive, most inclusive case we can, to overcome the instinct to move on and sweep these crimes under the rug. We need to present the entire shocking list, and then hammer them hard on the most provable crimes. They ARE undeniable...but they are NOT unignorable, unless we make sure they are not ignored.

To that end I ask you to present YOUR best case, your best evidence, your best reasoning, your best arguments for prosecution. For a new impeachment movement to prevent Bush from pardoning his fellow criminals on his way out the door. Let's work together to get the most solid presentation we can, and then present it to the rest of the blogosphere wherever we can and gather all of the support we can to push for justice.

An impeached president cannot pardon. Impeached officials cannot hold government positions...never again. Let us be sure we have done all we can do to bring this about, whatever the outcome may be. We owe it to tourselves, to the nation, to the world....and especially to those who have been killed and torture....In OUR Names.

Put whatever you have, whatever you feel, in an essay or a comment and we will do OUR best to incorporate it and build the best case we can, and then present it with a petition and a plea for others to make as much noise as they can. If you are not a 'joiner' then do what you can on your own. Every word counts, if we are to be heard.

We may not win, but dammit we won't...we can't...let this go without a fight.

Originally posted to buhdydharma on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:19 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Once more onto the beach, my friends! (435+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clyde, Angie in WA State, boydog, vicki, opendna, Skeeve, Terri, Ray Radlein, tankej, grollen, ogre, Rayne, laurak, Trendar, rhfactor, Jeff Simpson, peggy, Dave the Wave, melvynny, ScientistMom in NY, angrycalifornian, mattman, greenbird, rincewind, Shockwave, jabb, Heimyankel, Pescadero Bill, tacet, meg, Jim W, darrelplant, rightiswrong, TX Unmuzzled, leftyboy666, Bexley Lane, frisco, RFK Lives, grndrush, Heart of the Rockies, Gustogirl, NoisyGong, opinionated, evilstorm, Dazy, fugwb, groggy, understandinglife, ScantronPresident, srkp23, ask, Xapulin, edderh, buckhorn okie, michelle, oslo, nargel, juslikagrzly, oceanview, edie haskell, enough already, nonverbalcoma, artebella, sidnora, SensibleShoes, wader, Lilyvt, bjornmmcc, psnyder, TexDem, Dallasdoc, American Zapatista, apotropaic, brainwave, grannyhelen, johanus, Nina, churchylafemme, On The Bus, Sychotic1, defluxion10, betson08, snakelass, MATTIUS, Tillie630, AbsurdEyes, Mrcia, Pohjola, walkshills, KateCrashes, KayCeSF, Wife of Bath, jcrit, bablhous, Josiah Bartlett, rmx2630, xxdr zombiexx, Timroff, Dave Brown, donailin, TexMex, skippythebox, nailbender, joanneleon, tovan, radarlady, escapee, christineNYC, NoMoreLies, DianeNYS, UFOH1, baccaruda, revbludge, socks, ek hornbeck, mjd in florida, indycam, corvo, clammyc, Simplify, DocGonzo, Valtin, tomfool, ChemBob, kamarkamarka, david78209, dj angst, reflectionsv37, Pam from Calif, spectre7, jimreyn, GreyHawk, Burned, eaglecries, sheddhead, lotlizard, peteri2, Skid, Yamara, Tunk, Marcus Junius Brutus, wbr, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, neroden, wiscmass, EeDan, FindingMyVoice, coolbreeze, Shaking the Tree, Eileen B, bookwoman, LisainNYC, Flippant, Ekaterin, psyched, mightymouse, dancewater, soyinkafan, ChuckInReno, xaxnar, coffeeinamrica, Jim P, skywriter, martini, third Party please, ksingh, elliott, trashablanca, suz in seattle, MissInformation, Nightprowlkitty, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, rcbowman, cybersaur, 417els, BobbyK, Mahanoy, HoundDog, seefleur, Dvalkure, ccmask, deha, cliffradz, sailmaker, Lurky Lu, kck, greenearth, Lefty Coaster, goodasgold, NBBooks, triv33, 4Freedom, charityslave, imabluemerkin, Data Pimp, Doctor Frog, Caoimhin Laochdha, happy camper, NearlyNormal, armadillo, CTLiberal, gabriella, ER Doc, Unitary Moonbat, dirtfarmer, doinaheckuvanutjob, bonesy, Cenobyte, ilyana, vox humana, TeddySanFran, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, FiddleDeeDee, Dianna, va dare, Lovo, fiddlingnero, Stripe, Cassiodorus, means are the ends, RantNRaven, Dreaming of Better Days, kurt, zedaker, bstotts, Friend of the court, AllanTBG, markthshark, b3citizen, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, AntKat, seabos84, One Pissed Off Liberal, beaukitty, J Royce, Dave the Rave, marykk, wildNwonderful, greggp, Buckeye Hamburger, ibonewits, dotsright, donnamarie, willie horton, SomeStones, uncomfortably numb, donanon, dmh44, Trim Your Bush, godislove, Wide Awake in NJ, moosely2006, Stwriley, linkage, karmsy, JeremyA, DvCM, Mary Mike, chigh, Ticonderoga, Matt Z, flumptytail, Jimdotz, ezdidit, Tenn Wisc Dem, joyful, drchelo, twinpeaks, Democrat, newpioneer, bnasley, Drowning Wave, dolphin777, artisan, mcgee85, manwithnoname, Moderation, jayskew, Jack the R, carpunder, Wreck Smurfy, MadAsHellMaddie, uciguy30, slowheels, Badabing, Bikemom, willb48, oxon, rogerdaddy, JaxDem, LightningMan, Brandon Friedman, indyada, AshesAllFallDown, elwior, Wes Opinion, DCBlue, mikeconwell, moose67, Lujane, TH Seed, left my heart, pickandshovel, bluesheep, carver, Jeff Y, rubine, tamasher, mofembot, wavpeac, Rachel Griffiths, SmileySam, petulans, AJsBodBlog, LaFajita, echatwa, James Kresnik, DixieDishrag, omegajew, BYw, less god more good, A Man Called Gloom, dont think, magicsister, DavidW, Scubaval, shortgirl, Leo in NJ, Sarah Ann, Forbzee, maggiejean, 1BQ, bhagamu, Rhysling, loftT, hippie bitch, Mr Tentacle, Texanomaly, WSComn, snackdoodle, normboyd40, Clarknt67, gdwtch52, Discipline28, Dopeman, bsmechanic, banjolele, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, Inky99, LeftyEngineer, BlueInRedCincy, Daily Activist, Mercuriousss, John Shade, redtex, Texas Revolutionary, platypus60, ZilV, Tohi, MooseHB, sricki, CityLightsLover, audiored, ArthurPoet, fernan47, LaughingDog, myelinate, sydiot, Leftcandid, ratmach, Amber6541, BigVegan, Wyote, drgedde, angry liberaltarian, pyegar, dragonlilleth, LaughingPlanet, OneOfThoseBitterPeople, NYCgrl, wvmom, jqjacobs, freeport beach PA, xhibi, sunny skies, Klick2con10ue, Jommy, Peyton on the Plateau, pixxer, DrFitz, qi motuoche, Yasuragi, Johnny Q, Publius2008, WedtoReason, MsGrin, Otteray Scribe, Floande, Vik in FL, bottles, CA Berkeley WV, BendOver GOP, nosleep4u, Courtneys Mom, m2a0y1a2n, jeanma, bicycle Hussein paladin, Rail Electrification, Onomastic, Yo yo yo, Erin in Texas, the girl, Relevant Rhino, Colorado is the Shiznit, democratinalabama, ladywithafan, deerang, James N Ekrikit, implicate order, BlueState Michigan, Olon, Amayi, raymichael, southernmapper, BerlinBear, The Son of the Devil Himself, canuck4obama, page394, just one victory, greatlyconcerned, free as a butterfly


  •  damn't (12+ / 0-)

    I don't like being on the other side of this for once, but the transition is pretty important. Wouldn't this have some impact upon it?

    At this point I would be happy with censure. But, I think even they requires some spine.

    •  even that* (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buhdydharma, pascal, LaFajita


    •  I doubt it! (33+ / 0-)

      I think a lot of people (especially Pelosi and Emmanuel!) will be thinking as you are. I doubt the Impeach movement starting back up will discomfit them any more than it did before it was suspended to make sure we got Obama elected. If not less, since they only have to studiously ignore for a couple of months this time, instead of a couple of years.

      No offense, but there will always be some reason why it is not time to do it. This is the last chance to have it be anything more than symbolic.

    •  The impact would be that (34+ / 0-)

      any current or future office-holders will more carefully observe the law and their duties.

      That's not bad.

      After the transition, we'll be told "important legislation right away" and after that "we've got to think of 2010." Today is always the right day for Justice.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:30:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A minor nit? (18+ / 0-)

      An impeached president cannot pardon.

      I respectfully disagree. An impeached president can pardon. It's a president who has been impeached AND removed from office who cannot pardon.

      A nit? I don't think so.

      Even under the unlikely scenario that Congress could get its act together for the House to impeach and then for the Senate to schedule a trial, Chimpy could be writing pardons right and left--all the way up to the point when a Senate verdict was about to come in.

      In fact, he might be writing pardons right now and simply not announcing them via press releases. Who knows? And if he is, I'm unaware of any legal theory under which the pardons would be held to be invalid.  

      [And if you're about to cite Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, don't waste the keystrokes. No reputable constitutional scholar opines that that clause limits the pardon power during the impeachment except to the extent that a pardon cannot affect the ultimate results of an impeachment and trial, which is removal from office.]

      One reason presidents tend to announce a heap of pardons on or near their last day in office is that the political heat is off as they walk out the door.

      And in the case of this maladministration, if you didn't impeach Bush and Cheney simultaneously, you could convict Bush only to have Cheney sign whatever pardons were "in the queue".

      I'm all for pushing prosecutions, but I don't see how impeachment is a feasible solution.

      Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

      by TerribleTom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:53:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely (6+ / 0-)

        One reason presidents tend to announce a heap of pardons on or near their last day in office is that the political heat is off as they walk out the door.

        The threat of impeachment is about all we have to at LEAST put some preemptive heat ON.

        I don't mean to doubt you, but do you have a link to your statement that an impeached pres can pardon? I don't think I am wrong, but I am open to the possibility!

        •  What's more to the point is (18+ / 0-)

          where's the link that shows he can't (noting that you've asked me to prove the negative)?

          One has to begin with the premise that a president has the pardon power.

          Given that a president has that power, to make a case for the proposition that a president can't pardon after impeachment but before conviction, you need an authority or constitutional principle to support that exception.

          Keep in mind that a president is in no way generally stripped of his/her powers upon impeachment itself. Clinton, for example, was not suddenly stripped of his powers as commander in chief when he was convicted.

          Where confusion arises is in misinterpreting Article II, Section 2, which reads in pertinent part:

          Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia....and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

          Persistent misinterpretations of that final sentence to support a loss of pardon power have, at various times, risen to the level of an an urban myth. I am not surprised that you've seen laypeople on blogs take that position over and over. I've seen it at Kos more times than I'd like to remember.

          There's one thing in common about posts claiming that while a president is being impeached and removed he loses the pardon power: the writer is nearly always a non-lawyer and never a constitutional scholar.

          A careful reading of the Section 2, in concert with the Federalist papers (wherein there is no discussion whatsoever about suspending the pardon power), will lead one trained in constitutional construction to the unambiguous interpretation that "cases of impeachment" applies to exactly that--to the procedings and consequences in cases of impeachment.

          It does not say "except when cases of impeachment are in progress" or "after a president has been impeached" or anything of the sort.

          What virtually all constitutional scholars maintain is that the clause means that a president cannot halt impeachment proceedings, make them moot, or alter the result of an impeachment and trial by invoking the pardon power. (That should be self-evident. Otherwise, impeachment would not be a check and balance at all.)

          Interpretations to the contrary are purely and simply urban myth made up by laymen, not competent legal scholars.

          Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

          by TerribleTom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:48:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you for this. (5+ / 0-)

            I had an argument with a very foul-tempered Kossak who kept insisting that this interpretation was the correct one.  

            "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

            by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well stated (5+ / 0-)

            Not being a lawyer, it would be presumptuous to disagree. Which I know, lol, lawyers relish!

            How bout impeaching and then getting an injuction against pardons until resolution? That would at least (to steal a Repub tactic) muddy things up enough to keep everything flowing, perhaps?

            Or should we then, impeach Rumsfeld, Cheney and Gonzales now, so that Bush cannot pardon them?

            Where do you stand on the proposition of Bush pardoning himself, btw?

            •  You want to get an injunction against (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pascal, TerribleTom

              the Constitution itself?

              Good luck with that.

              "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

              by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:30:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  A judge cannot enjoin a pardon. (3+ / 0-)

              That whole separation of powers thing... Also, impeachment is only the removal from Office, Rumsfeld and Gonzales are not Constitutional Officers, they cannot be impeached. Also, the President can still pardon them for their crimes, even if they are impeached. A pardon is blank slate with Article III, impeachment is Article I acting in a quasi-judicial role.

              •  You're right about the judges, but... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JMcDonald, pascal

                wrong about Gonzales and Rumsfeld.  They both were Constitutional officers (they headed executive departments created by Congress and their appointment requires "advice and consent", so they qualify.  It does not matter that they have left office, as it is already established precedent that such officers can be impeached even after they have left office (the Belknap precedent.)

                Conservito delenda est!

                by Stwriley on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:42:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Then Cheney pardons Bush? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Well maybe not reverse an impeachment,  but cover all else.

              This is a bottomless well.  Yet the crimes must be prosecuted somehow.

              "Our technology forces us to live mythically, but we continue to think fragmentarily, and on single, separate planes." M. McLuhan

              by donanon on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:34:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I believe the appropriate documents are already (8+ / 0-)

              in place to begin impeachment proceedings:

              Why would we not use this article to impeach, since it has been 'sitting on the shelf' for literally months now?

              Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Oscar Wilde

              by Badabing on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:05:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  For the record (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pascal, Badabing

                In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power:

                Article I
                Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

                Article II
                Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

                Article III
                Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

                Article IV
                Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

                Article V
                Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

                Article VI
                Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

                Article VII
                Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

                Article VIII
                Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

                Article IX
                Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

                Article X
                Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

                Article XI
                Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

                Article XII
                Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

                Article XIIII
                Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and OtherCountries

                Article XIV
                Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

                Article XV
                Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

                Article XVI
                Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

                Article XVII
                Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

                Article XVIII
                Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

                Article XIX
                Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

                Article XX
                Imprisoning Children

                Article XXI
                Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

                Article XXII
                Creating Secret Laws

                Article XXIII
                Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

                Article XXIV
                Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

                Article XXV
                Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

                Article XXVI
                Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

                Article XXVII
                Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

                Article XXVIII
                Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

                Article XXIX
                Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

                Article XXX
                Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

                Article XXXI
                Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

                Article XXXII
                Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

                Article XXXIII
                Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

                Article XXXIV
                Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

                Article XXXV
                Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders


          •  Cite a court decision agreeing with you -- (0+ / 0-)

            -- and not merely dicta -- and then I believe you have a basis at telling this forum what the law IS and what is urban myth.

            There is a logical argument that any pardons related to the same events forming the basis of the impeachment of a President cannot stand, otherwise the evidence gathering power of the Senate related to the impeachment would be eviscerated.  

            The point here isn't to stop all of Bush's pardoning.  It's to provide a legal basis to go to court to defeat Pardons that are part of the same nexus of operative facts as the crimes with which the President is charged.

            It sounds to me like you are representing the opinions of legal scholars as if they were the law, and I find that disconcerting, particularly where your position on the matter would make a mockery, in my opinion, of impeachment itself.

            But perhaps I've misunderstood you, so I look forward to a clarification.

        •  We don't really have the threat of impeachment... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buhdydharma, TerribleTom, bushondrugs

          Impeachment is a quasi-judicial process. The trials in the House and the Senate, alone, would barely be completed before Bush's term ends. Through in another 2 or 3 months to actually investigate and, assuming the votes were even there, we could have George Bush removed from office a couple months after his term ends.

          •  It's not the removal, it's the eternal shame... (5+ / 0-)

            It's Bush having an Asterisk next to his name for all time

            43 George W. Bush 2000-2008 *
            (*Impeached during his last 2 weeks in office, convicted of Treason and other crimes, currently imprisoned at Federal Supermax Prison at Pelican Bay, California)

            Just day dreamin'

            Barack Obama - a President WE can count on (finally)!

            by dagnome on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:28:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  maladministration. heh. nice. NT. :) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buhdydharma, pascal

        To be, rather than to seem.--NC State Motto

        by make a difference on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:31:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hell, I'd bet Pelosi would sign them (8+ / 0-)

        And in the case of this maladministration, if you didn't impeach Bush and Cheney simultaneously, you could convict Bush only to have Cheney sign whatever pardons were "in the queue".

        After her non-answers to questions about impeachment at Netroots Nation last summer, I consider her the Queen Whuss Supreme.  No act of cowardice on her part could surprise me.

        We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

        by david78209 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:16:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Must try for both. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buhdydharma, pascal

        Valid point.

        Here in America, our destiny is not written for us - it's written by us. Barack Obama 9/28/08

        by quadmom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:30:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Chimpy Writing Pardons (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I suspect he isn't real happy with the way his party threw him under the bus for the 08 elections. Although we may see some prophylactic type pardons for his inner circle, I'm willing to bet he "forgets " about the rest.

        He isn't a very sympathetic guy. Loyalty is very much a one way street with him and can't be happy about the last few months. My bet is there are scene reminiscent of our exit from Vietnamn in 1975 on his last day. Only Bush's helicopter leaves with one person on-board and middle finger extended. That woman falling out at 5000 feet? Laura.

        It's perfect ending for the Man Who Fucked Up Everything

        Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

        by Dburn on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:46:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why is "shut up and wait" always the answer... (11+ / 0-) matter what time it is?

  •  Impeach? (15+ / 0-)

    Impeach? Hell yeah, yes we can!

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:24:26 PM PST

  •  You may have heard of this little thing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    artebella, buhdydharma, pascal, LaFajita

    we like to call the Constitution? I'm pretty sure I remember reading something in there about how no warrants will issue except upon probable cause.

    I think your idea sounded better in the original German: Schutzhaft.

  •  re (5+ / 0-)

    This is Nancy we are talking

    "Steve Holt could not be more proud of President-elect Obama!" - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:24:44 PM PST

  •  One good thing that rightwingers say (18+ / 0-)

    is "Government should be afraid of the People, not the People afraid of their Government."

    Now that the election is over, we really really really have to come to the sensible position, the adult position, the American position: that no one in government is to be trusted, and those who betray the public's trust must suffer so that no one else will be tempted to do so for decades to come.

    In other words, forget cheering for the Democrats (the leftish wing of the Establishment, not of America) for now and hold them, and everyone before them accountable.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM PST

    •  What part of oversight, lol (14+ / 0-)

      is "anti-American?"

      What you describe is how it is supposed to work! How the framers intended it to work.

      We have let them down.

    •  Disagree with the repub aphorism (5+ / 0-)

      I like better "Trust but verify." We have to trust our government, but we have to dog it to make sure it works. We have a problem with the leadership by criminals and a cleanup project to get rid of their planted hacks.

      There are thousands of trustworthy people who work for our government who have been as frustrated as we have over the last eight years. As the cleaning of the Augean stables begins we must remember that most of the people who try to deliver the services that only they are empowered to implement have tried to do so with integrity. The current admin has seeded all of the departments with know nothings and political hacks, but those are not the majority of people in government. Our local, state and even federal agencies have a lot of people who serve because they see value in what they do for the people of our cities, states and the country. I work with all of those levels of government employees and have found many that have gained my deepest respect for the work that they do.

      820 Illinois-427 Senate Sponsored-152 Senate authored. Obama record on Bills. Palin record 0-0-0. Palin Lies-1 big one and counting.

      by marketgeek on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, it's not just the rightwingers. (8+ / 0-)

        Our very form of government is a testimony to the fact that you can't trust someone once they are in a position to be tempted by power.

        It's the elected/duly appointed officials they (rw's & Founders) were talking about. No doubt, there are people who are trustworthy--and amongst the rank-and-file worker, I'm sure of it--but political power is like a cesspool. Even the best get the stink on them. It's reasonable to expect as much, and wildly optimistic to think otherwise, imo.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree pretty much (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P, buhdydharma, cgirard

          thus the trust but verify. We need to keep their feet to the fire so that they don't forget who they are working for. This may mean, dare I say it, more and better dems. We are starting to get more, nothing wrong with going after the better part for the next election cycle.

          820 Illinois-427 Senate Sponsored-152 Senate authored. Obama record on Bills. Palin record 0-0-0. Palin Lies-1 big one and counting.

          by marketgeek on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  There are several excellent reasons not to (23+ / 0-)

    First, there isn't time.

    There's going to be a lame duck session, but that's going to be completely focused on the financial crisis, and a last minute impeachment would eat up the congress.

    Second, there aren't the numbers.

    The senate will still be 51-49 (WITH holy Joe) until January 2nd. The number was the reason they weren't impeached before.

    Third, Obama's Cabinet needs to be confirmed.

    Yeah, that's right. Every major committee will be tied up holding hearings on EVERY SINGLE CABINET and SUB CABINET official.

    and finally,

    impeaching him with like, THREE DAYS LEFT, will make Obama look like a fucking asshole!

  •  That bus left the station long ago (23+ / 0-)

    Once the new and cowardly Democratic majority refused to impeach in 2007 we knew it wouldn't happen.  The election was in the way, and now is simply the wrong time.

    As much as I dearly want Dubya frog-marched to the hoosegow, I cannot support impeachment now.

    It is critical that Obama succeed, and an impeachment fight now would throw a monkey wrench into wheels that are just starting to move.  Nor is there time for something like impeachment, which would not happen on a dime.

    Buhdy, I'm with you in spirit, but we've already lost this fight.

    You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

    by A Mad Mad World on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM PST

    •  I understand completely (21+ / 0-)

      But I cannot let it go without a fight!

      I would feel like shit if I didn't do all I could to hold them accountable for torturing in my name, ya know?

      •  So you would tie President Obama's hands (6+ / 0-)

        because you can't let it go?

        You have to pick your battles in this life, and this is not the one.  It would take ALL of Congress's energy right up until the inauguration.

        Is is that important to you, that you are willing to sacrifice President Obama's effectiveness?

        "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

        by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nobody's Hands (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nightprowlkitty, LaFajita

          are going to be tied. The case will have to be sold to the public including congress and 85% of the American people who are mostly ignorant to their own complicity in Bush's crimes.

          "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

          by Klick2con10ue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:41:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Untrue. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The logistics of introducing and passing articles of impeachment, and holding a trial, will impede the work of Congress.

            Are you even aware of the timelines involved?  

            "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

            by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:24:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well I did "live" through one. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NonnyO, BentLiberal

              "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

              by Klick2con10ue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:34:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you remember, then, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bonsai superstar

                that Congress got little else accomplished during that time.

                Would you rather do that than, say, pass legislation, or hold confirmation hearings and confirm the new Cabinet?

                "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

                by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:49:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  lemme think (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  sure.;) why not

                  "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

                  by Klick2con10ue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

                  Holding executive officials to account before the Constitution and the citizenry is moving the country forward.

                  I wish Congress had spent all of the past two years investigating and impeaching, rather than passing more empire-funding bills, the FISA Amendments Act, and all of the other awful stuff they've done.

                  Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

                  by Simplify on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:21:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  So letting people commit crimes of treason (0+ / 0-)

                  is OK because it's inconvenient to do anything about it right now?

                  If that's what we've come to, then Obama won't save us with new economic stimulus packages. We're already lost.

                  Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will - Kwame Ture

                  by beckstei on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:03:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  "Can't walk and chew gum." (5+ / 0-)

          One of the most un-original anti-impeachment excuses, over the years.

          •  It is no such thing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Are you aware of the steps and the timelines involved?  It is highly unlikely the process would even be completed before President Obama is inaugurated.  Without, it should be noted, a Cabinet, because the entire Senate has been tied up in a trial of the sitting President, for which the worst punishment which can be imposed is removal of office.

            As a matter of fact, impeachment would probably be moot before the process could even be completed, because Bush would no longer be in office.

            If you'd rather do that than hold hearings to confirm the Cabinet and the hundreds (probably thousands) of other appointments the new President must make between now and Jan. 20, there is something wrong with you.

            "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

            by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:27:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I realize you're new here and may not have seen (0+ / 0-)

              ...this argument, that you made posted a jazillion times.  (and this is not a newness put-down, just an acknowlegement you've probably not seen it)

              But trust me, it is very un-original.

              •  I'm looking at the timelines (0+ / 0-)

                in the Clinton impeachment and trial.  It took about two months.  Little else got done during that time period.

                It's a waste of energy, considering he will be gone in a little more than two months anyway.  And removal from office is the only punishment which could be imposed.

                "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

                by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:48:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As I've already said (0+ / 0-)

                  this "can't walk and chew gum" argument is very unoriginal, and tired.

                  You re-stating the agrument, as if we've all not heard it, it doesn't change that.

                  •  There's no need to be a jerk about it. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    It's not a "walk and chew gum" argument.

                    It will take a bare minimum of two months, and the worst that can happen to Bush is that, at the end of those two months, he would be removed from office.  And that is IF you can get 67 Senators to vote for conviction, which of course is highly unlikely because you would have to get a minimum of 7 Republicans to vote for conviction.  And that's if we pull out all 3 remaining Senate seats, and Benedict Lieberman votes with us, so we're conceivably looking at getting 11 Republican Senators to vote for conviction.

                    Unless you only want to impeach, and don't care about conviction, in which case it is even more of a waste of time, because impeachment without conviction has no effect whatsoever.  

                    "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." - Lewis Carroll

                    by Dave1955 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:40:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you on this, buhdy. (6+ / 0-)

        Even if all I can do is gnaw on their ankles as they run away, I'll gnaw for all I'm worth as they go.

        Do what you can with what you have where you are - Guild of Maintainers

        by bablhous on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:06:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Note (0+ / 0-)

        A lot of people here and elsewhere were riding high on the Bush bandwagon until they woke up or became semi=conscious. There will be foot dragging from all areas including DEms who were complicit in Bush's crimes. It will be a hard sale. (Impeachment/justice)

        "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

        by Klick2con10ue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:38:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  amen to "...torturing in my name." (0+ / 0-)

        An ad hoc "What Went Wrong" commission should be convened, but in the interest of comity when BushCheney can yet do so much harm in just 73 days...I dunno.

        I would rather see the Dems mouth all the centrist bi-partisan bull before the progressive political shit really hits the fan in January.

        Right now, Emanuel can't even answer a question about when the tax increases for the wealthiest will go into effect.

        Nobody wants to rock the boat when it's already teetering.

        "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

        by ezdidit on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 07:43:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  great post (6+ / 0-)

      which is more important?

      -President Obama starting on the right foot, uniting the country, achieving our progressive goals?


      waste time and money, raise the public discourse on something that will never happen in the first place?

      This year we can declare our independence...Barack Obama

      by PalGirl2008 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "now is simply the wrong time" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, NonnyO, LaFajita

      where now = any time

    •  It's Always the Wrong Time (12+ / 0-)

      No, the "cowardly Democrats" were the ones who insisted that impeachment would interfere with Democrats winning the election. Well, that excuse just left the station late Tuesday night.

      There is plenty of time for impeachment. Impeachment can be prosecuted quickly, and in parallel with all kinds of other actions - just like it was against Clinton, but legitimately.

      What we don't have time for, or excuses for, is letting Bush get away with literal murder, and a litany of other crimes. Because there'd be even less stopping the next tyrant, without even the uncertainty Bush/Cheney faced that they might be impeached. Once proven "above the law", the next tyrant will be even worse.

      And there's no reason to think a Democrat wouldn't be the next, either.

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

      by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good post. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Some Dems that are against impeachment may have very bad motives.

      •  Did it? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Yes, we won the election, but there was no impeachment precedings before it, so that doesn't really prove either side right, does it?

        Don't get me wrong. I would frankly love nothing more than to send the whole lot of them from the Oval Office to the firing squad for what they've done, but an impeachment isn't gonna happen. If it did I would be dancing a merry jig, but I have no faith that our pussy Congress would go through with it, especially when they have so many excuses to make. I'm sure if it happened Fox and their ilk would start on the I THOUGHT OBAMA WAS ABOUT UNITY and HOW DARE THEY WHEN WE HAVE 2 WARS AND AN ECONOMIC CRISIS TO DEAL WITH and so on so on...I don't know how many people would listen to them anymore.  But I do know that even if a Dem with tanuki-size balls calls for it, it's not gonna happen.

        I would honestly get more satisfaction shipping the whole lot of them off to the UN and see if we can get some war crimes convictions... or at least dump them off naked on a curbside in Baghdad or Kabul or somewhere.

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          Did what?

          I don't get you, wrong or right. What does

          Yes, we won the election, but there was no impeachment precedings before it, so that doesn't really prove either side right, does it?

          mean? You seem to be replying to something, but I don't get what it is you could be replying to.

          The rest of your post seems to boil down to "people are satisfied with an election, without needing an impeachment, which would require the demands of an angry nation". The political will to impeach is not what the case for impeachment is built on - in my post, in this diary, or in the Constitution. Impeachment follows from an obligation to justice. The consequences of failing to execute justice are exactly what I said: the next tyrant will be even more free to do their crimes.

          And since the last tyrant still sits in the White House, still doing more crimes, that freedom seems perfectly clear, even more clear than the current tyrant who has proven that freedom. We now have a government in which tyranny is an institution, kept from happening at the whim of the government. What happens when Joe Biden turns out to have some personal project he believes needs to be completed, but Congress, the law, the courts, or something else stands in his way? We're relying on "Joe's too nice to do it". Which means we have thrown away our Constitutional republic, and we now have an elected monarchy. What happens when Sarah Palin wins in 2012? Or maybe in 2016, if Mr Nice Guy Biden runs (which is likely), but loses because "he's older than McCain was"? What happens when Romney/Giuliani run in 2012, amidst a new Great Depression (helped along by their cronies in the global corporatocracy, just as Republicans engineered under Carter), and Obama's huge turnout disappears when people are disillusioned by a mere president who can't work miracles?

          Besides, Bush is a clear and present danger. As this diary says, "impeachment to prevent pardons". The people who the criminal Bush pardons will immediately go back to work in the private sector, flush with the $TRILLIONS we've paid them and their cronies, and attack an American government that hasn't been this weak in centuries.

          Maybe impeachment won't get done. That's no excuse for anyone committed to justice or self preservation to be making excuses for a government that won't do its duty. Now. Before it's too late.

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

          by DocGonzo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:48:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

            I was replying to this:

            No, the "cowardly Democrats" were the ones who insisted that impeachment would interfere with Democrats winning the election. Well, that excuse just left the station late Tuesday night.

            I took that as "we won the election, so they were wrong." Looking at it again, I'm guessing you meant "we won, so now there's no election excuses." But to be fair it looks like you completely misinterpreted my post and wrote a long reply to nothing at all as well, so I suppose we're even.

            What I was saying is that I am 100% FOR an impeachment, but I think the House & Senate Democrats are too pussy to try. Thus I'm more interested in letting the international community string Bush & his cohorts up on war crimes charges (sure there are presidential pardons, but I don't think a US President can pardon charges made by other countries, no?)

    •  If we can't impeach him & his cronies... (0+ / 0-)

      ...can we just, say, tie em up and dump em off somewhere in Iraq and tell the citizens to go to town?

  •  I would settle for a truth commission (16+ / 0-)

    Hearing them record their own actions for history is enough.

  •  Bush is not going to be impeached. (7+ / 0-)

    Move on dot org.

  •  Dude... we won. (6+ / 0-)

    With a Democrat at the Justice Department we can prosecute.

    Pragmatic progressivism is the future.

    by Pragmaticus on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM PST

  •  Politically, a non starter.... (8+ / 0-)

    Let's acknowledge that the Dailykos audience represents a small slice of voter public opinion.

    Surveys that ask the question, "Should the President have the right under extraordinary circumstances to authorize torture to gain information" I would guess, would be a majority , Yes.

    Of course it depends on how the question is asked.  And there is no way, in the handful of days that remain that the congress will be in session for impeachment to be on the agenda.

    Bush has issued an array of revisions to regulations, including one that cuts payment for medicare, destroying the health safety net.

    These could be negated if Dems had the will.

    If Bush is inclined to issue blanket pardons, he has the constitutional right to do so.  Of course with each pardon come the taint of guilt, at least to some.  

  •  Why should be bother? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Just get a bigger shredder for all those "sternly worded letters" to come!

  •  I say we can make our money back going after the (10+ / 0-)

    criminals....remember Napolean and St. Helena Island?

    Well, with the "CBS Survivor" mentality, we could buy/lease a Pitney Island or two, and simply exile them.  

    BUT, we get syndication rights, watching these crooks try to build huts and climb coconut trees.  

    We give them cameras, and reduce the sentences based on the hilarity of the footage they submit.

    Stop Congressional Gerrymandering- Zero Costs = Infinite Benefits

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM PST

  •  Truth and Reconciliation Commission (16+ / 0-)

    It has worked other place and the shaming of those who were outed, while not punishment, ensured that no-one could later claim that they were right in their criminal conduct. That was the problem with Nixon getting off--the people behind him were never called to account and many ended up in our current administration. I truthfully feel that impeachment is not enough--we need to join the International Court, have a Truth Commission, and have these people prosecuted as war criminals so that they and their friends will not be able to do it again. And so that the public finally understands the incredibly low level to which we have descended over the last eight years.

    820 Illinois-427 Senate Sponsored-152 Senate authored. Obama record on Bills. Palin record 0-0-0. Palin Lies-1 big one and counting.

    by marketgeek on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:38:09 PM PST

    •  I would settle for public humiliation of the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buhdydharma, NonnyO, Klick2con10ue

      miscreants, but impeachment is so much more logical, judicial and American.  Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW.

      •  I would agree, but I don't think it can happen (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, buhdydharma, donanon, cgirard

        because I don't think the current congress has the spine and I don't think they want to rock the boat when we are so close to a new balance of power in the house and senate.

        I also don't think it is enough. Impeachment is public humiliation, but no consequences other than getting tossed out. Call me a hardass, but my personal hope is that we can have a lot of these folks tried internationally as war criminals and jailed--or made to flee to countries with no extradition treaties.

        820 Illinois-427 Senate Sponsored-152 Senate authored. Obama record on Bills. Palin record 0-0-0. Palin Lies-1 big one and counting.

        by marketgeek on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'd settle for a permanent ban on public office (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, cgirard

      or any government, or military position for those involved.

      Good Christians fix themselves and help others, not the other way around.

      by skrekk on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:43:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Impeachment is a BIG distraction (8+ / 0-)

    Bush is out of office in a couple of months. Impeachment would never get through the Senate. And everybody needs to focus on the economy.

    I can't believe impeachment is even being discussed seriously right now.

  •  Still with the impeachment? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, buhdydharma, NonnyO, sydiot

    Good call !

    The Republican Party's agenda to subjugate average Americans is so rotten, it smells worse than the toilet seat on a shrimp boat." Aristotle

    by funluvn1 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:41:08 PM PST

  •  Impeachment will not prevent pardons (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind, buhdydharma, LaFajita, Dave1955

    The president is still the president even after an impeachment is filed with the House.  He can pardon every member of his administration, then resign, and have Cheney pardon him.

    Impeachment cannot prevent that.  At least in my opinion FWIW.

  •  How are things over to the dharma? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    otto, buhdydharma

    I miss a lot of the locals, but then again not enough to deal with the others.

    The Republican Party's agenda to subjugate average Americans is so rotten, it smells worse than the toilet seat on a shrimp boat." Aristotle

    by funluvn1 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:45:36 PM PST

  •  The Hague? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peggy, buhdydharma, NonnyO, LaFajita, owilde69

    What would it take to get 'em up before the Hague? Would that work Budhy?

    To be, rather than to seem.--NC State Motto

    by make a difference on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM PST

  •  they will have to be tried on forign soil (7+ / 0-)

    there's no way around it

    Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

    by VelvetElvis on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM PST

  •  I've always supported impeachment, but I don't (6+ / 0-)

    get how it is technically still feasible now. The process would have barely started when Shrub and his merry gang of thugs leave office - and then the process just automatically aborts, I imagine.

    I think it is absolutely critical however that Congress in some form or other investigate and censor Bush and his co-conspirators for deliberately (a)  misleading Congress on the case against Iraq and (b) breaking FISA and other existing laws prohibiting spying on American citizens unauthorized by the judiciary.

    An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

    by brainwave on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM PST

    •  Nope (9+ / 0-)

      As I understand it they can be impeached even after they are out of office.

      I think one of the best ways to pressure for investigations is to start the impeach movement back up!

      Let's em know we are serious, lol!

      •  Well, in that case, I'm all for it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Cause impeachment is the strongest form of censure, and nothing less than the strongest form of censure will be adequate.

        An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

        by brainwave on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You are simply wrong on that point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3cardmonty, Buckeye Hamburger

        You cannot continue an impeachment after the official leaves office.  The most that an impeachment can do is remove them from office.  When the official is no longer in office, impeachment and removal are a moot point.  What is your understanding based upon?

        •  There is precedent (0+ / 0-)

          On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

          This failed to stop the House.  Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

          The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.  During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:31:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm on board (10+ / 0-)

    and I ain't changing my sig until Jan 20.

    IMPEACH " that no future president may infer that we have implicitly sanctioned what we have not explicitly condemned." John Conyers, 1974

    by rincewind on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:01:40 PM PST

  •  From a current McClatchy article (22+ / 0-)

    by Marisa,

    Although Obama is likely to ban waterboarding and other aggressive techniques soon after taking office, prosecuting administration officials not only would be legally challenging because legislation has granted them immunity but also would be seen by Republicans as highly divisive.

    Negotiating that minefield may be among the most difficult legal dilemmas Obama faces early in his administration because of pressure from the left and the right.

    "There will be hell to pay if people are prosecuted," said Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas law professor. "But there'll be hell to pay if they just walk away scot-free."

    He predicted that Obama might sidestep the controversy with the Bush administration's help. If President Bush issues pre-emptive pardons to prevent prosecutions, the Obama administration should form a bipartisan panel, similar to the Sept. 11 commission, to oversee an inquiry, he said. Once pardoned, officials implicated in the controversy would be required to discuss details of the policies because they'd be unable to assert their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

    This ain't over yet. One way or another I predict Bush will face a court some day.

    President Theodore Roosevelt,"No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered."

    by SmileySam on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:02:27 PM PST

  •  I happen to believe that our government (6+ / 0-)

    could work on the economy, the wars and impeachment at the same time, if they had the will.  That said, if the pursuit of impeachment proceedings meant that I had to endure this economic meltdown longer and deeper* than I would have had to without impeachment, I'm willing to tough it out.

    (heh heh... I said "longer and deeper").

    The return to respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the elimination of functional immunity for those with the most power all mean too much to me for me to put my own comfort ahead of them.  Even if our economic recovery were delayed by a year or two, I wouldn't consider that too high a price to pay for the renovation of our crumbling legal foundation.

    You can remodel a house as extensively as you wish, but if you don't repair the foundation it won't weather the next round of severe weather.

  •  Well (7+ / 0-)

    If impeachment is truely still off the table, then I suppose a war crimes trial at the International Court will have to do.  Damn but I wish we could handle our own dirty laundry.  

    We are coming off as a god damned third world banana republic -- politically connected fat cats lining their pockets while people starve, get killed, get thrown in jail -- but because IOKIYAR, nothing happens.  

    Is anyone under the illusion that if Obama puts one person -- ONE PERSON -- into Guantanamo during his term -- that he won't be impeached by the house and tried in the Senate?  Hah.  While King George has rounded up mostly innocent people all over the friggin' world and thrown them into hell holes worse than Gitmo, and tortured them, and won't let them go now because it would make him look bad.  Shit.  Pardon my french, but just... shit.

    •  The impeach Obama movement has already begun, lol (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, LaFajita
    •  'Tis a very good reason for booting Lieberman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      out as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:

      As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman's House counterpart -- Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee -- was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.

      And yet, now Lieberman acts as if keeping this chairmanship is the single most important part of his public life. Why would he be so desperate to keep the gavel of a committee he hasn't used? I'll let you in on a secret: he wants to start using the power of this committee against Obama.

      Lieberman didn't want to hold Bush accountable, but he seems exceedingly anxious to keep the committee that would go after Obama with a vengeance, effectively becoming a Waxman-like figure -- holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching investigations against the Democratic president.

  •  No choice, whether we want to or not. (6+ / 0-)

    If no one is held accountable, then the precedent is set, and the Constitution becomes a mere set of guidelines.

    If no one is punished for ignoring congressional subpoenas, then congress is just a debating chamber for the overprivileged.

    The political costs of proceeding -- appearing vengeful -- have to take second place.

    When employees and stock-holders aren't different people, I'll find something else to do.

    by oxon on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM PST

  •  Let me explain our core problem: (13+ / 0-)


    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:16:54 PM PST

  •  Another core problem (5+ / 0-)

    Is that present company understands that the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism" is crap, that we do not have a right to police the world, and that our "superpower status" is all but over (if not EXACTLY over.)

    I have heard sane people whom I respect who really still believe that our "standing in the world" is very important and that impeachment is a blow to our world wide credibility... and I think that's a veiw shared not only by the right but also by moderates and moderate lefties.... IOW lots of people....

    when of course the TRUTH is IMNSHO our world wide credibility really couldn't be any lower, unless we oh I don't know invade Canada or something...

    so how to overcome that little problem, and build the public will to impeach/try for treason/Hague them, or whatever... I don't know...

    but, hey, "yes we can." I'm with Budhy, after a LONG time of consideration about this issue....

    so the next steps are.... ??????

    To be, rather than to seem.--NC State Motto

    by make a difference on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:28:05 PM PST

  •  You're right. Let me propose another rationale (11+ / 0-)

    to explain why.

    The behavior sanctioned by Bush/Cheney is consistent with the assumption that the head of the government is the ruler and his word is law.
    Now, it is precisely this principle which the Constitutional designation of the people as the source of law was intended and designed to negate.

    What the neo-cons have attempted to assert is the role of the ruler whose selection at the ballot box is the sole concession to the populace.

    Additionally, the establishment of term limits on the tenure of the "ruler" effectively removes the traditional check on the sovereign represented by "off with his head."  While impeachment is the less lethal recourse against an abusive ruler, the prospect of his automatic removal has vitiated that process.  In other words, the specific process of disapproval embodied by the impeachment process has been negated by the prospect of an automatic removal at the end of a term.

    It seems reasonable to argue, "why bother with dismissal, if the fellow is going to be gone anyway."  But, the reality is that the term limit actually serves to protect the office holder from being held accountable.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:33:21 PM PST

  •  Right on buhdydharma! (12+ / 0-)

    Wouldn't a little justice taste sweet?

    "The truth shall set you free - but first it'll piss you off." Gloria Steinem

    Iraq Moratorium

    by One Pissed Off Liberal on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:43:55 PM PST

  •  Absolutely Spot-on (4+ / 0-)

    Not about vengeance, but about justice; about clearing the way for the restoration of democracy.

  •  We need an impeachment process (11+ / 0-)

    Censure is too little, too minor, and it doesn't prevent Georgie from pre-emptively pardoning anyone of federal crimes (Scooter Libby, anyone? Think he was guilty but had not yet been sentenced when he was pardoned.), or pardoning others who have been convicted of federal crimes (Ted Stevens of Alaska, I think, might be able to be pardoned, but I don't know the specifics, only that the trial took place in Washington DC, not Alaska).

    Censure carries no penalties.  It's basically a slap on the wrist and a toothless tongue lashing that says 'don't do that again.'  Censure is useless, in other words.

    Bush, Cheney, and their administration officials and corporations (Halliburton, Carlyle, DynCorp, KBR, Blackwater, et cetera) all profited enormously from their unjustified, unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, unethical, dishonorable war crime in Iraq based on lies for the sake of the oil beneath their sands, and the illegal prison at Gitmo (and who knows how many other black ops places).  They broke one major treaty: The Geneva Conventions, which are part of the US Constitution under the treaties clause, which also makes their war and their prison camp unconstitutional.  The Iraq war (and the Afghanistan war, for that matter, even if we had permission from the UN to go there) needs to be stopped immediately, and the prisoners at Guantánamo need to be released to their home countries immediately if they have not been charged with any crimes.

    To Nancy Pelosi who took impeachment off the table and all those Congress Critters who kept delaying the demands of their constituents who have been demanding impeachment all along by saying now is not the time for various reasons (election coming up, campaign going on, other things to legislate... like resolutions congratulating sports teams and naming public buildings for whomever), I ask:  WHEN is the time for justice?  Thousands upon thousands of people have been killed for lies for oil.  If not now, when?

    Yes, we know some Democrats who are culpable will go down with the lawless Republicans and that is fine by many of us.  Better good Democrats be elected than Democrats who knew about torture and said nothing and let it happen, or those who knew as well as we did before the invasion (we listened to Hans Blix) that the invasion of Iraq was solely for oil and went along with passing idiotic legislation like AUMF, the Patriot Acts, MCA '06, and the FISA fiasco (yes, one very important person can be criticized for voting in favor of that one because it was the wrong thing to do).  Along with ending the Iraq war and closing Gitmo, those pieces of unconstitutional legislation need to be repealed in their entirety, right along with repealing every executive order and signing statement that Bush ever signed, and everyone who believes we need to once again become a nation of laws knows it.

    The best we can hope for at this point is that immediately after January 20, 2009 (preferably that afternoon!) President Obama will quietly and without fanfare sign on to the World Court and Bush, Cheney, and their cohorts will be tried for war crimes at The Hague.  We should try them under US Code Title 18 (war crimes), but I don't believe for one second that will happen, nor the investigations into Bush-Cheney lies and war crimes that we all know have happened.  Someone else is going to have to see justice on our behalf because too many Democrats are culpable and liable as accomplices (before or after the fact), and no staunch Bush-Cheney loyalist would dare to convict the lying war criminals (out of "friendship").

    There is a way to do a quickie impeachment that Bruce Fein described in front of the HJC, but even with a Democratic majority between the first of January when congressional members are sworn in and January 20 when the inauguration takes place, we don't have enough courageous congressional members to actually do anything about holding Georgie and Dickie accountable for their lies and war crimes.

    So, in spite of a new administration, we will still be lacking in ethics and morals on the world stage if the lying war criminals running this nation are not arrested and tried for their war crimes right here in our own country.


    by NonnyO on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM PST

    •  Hi Nonny! (4+ / 0-)

      You seem to be in fine form!

      •  Hi buhdy! :-) (7+ / 0-)

        Impeachment is STILL my #1 "issue" as it has been since the first lie Georgie told to get the nation on the path to war.  I've been in favor of impeachment longer than anyone I know.  The Clinton impeachment was most certainly a stupid distraction, but even contemplating impeaching Dickie and Georgie should have been mandatory from the get-go.  It's like the Clinton impeachment was designed to be stupid so that when Bush-Cheney took over no one wanted to put the nation through that wringer again, even though this time there were serious lies and horrible war crimes - valid reasons! - involved for which they should have been impeached... AND tried for war crimes, either under US law and/or international law.

        I think Obama is a nice fellow, but he's a scholar and scholars debate things; they're better at talking than at doing (I love 'em in a college classroom, but that's because a good debater and lecturer is a wonderful person to behold - but they're pretty well useless outside of scholarly environs).  I don't see Obama as a hard-line law and order kind of fellow, so I think if push comes to shove he'll ask everyone to sing Kumbaya and say we have other things to do, we must move forward... and that's the way Georgie and Dickie and their criminal cohorts will get by with their lies and war crimes.  He'll just wash his hands of the matter.  The only thing I hope for is that he'll at least sign on to the world court so someone can try these lying war criminals.

        Yes, I voted for him (gawd, how could I not with the threat of Palin an old man's heartbeat away from the presidency?), but I was wishing I was voting for Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday morning.  I also liked Kucinich's not-for-profit health care plan much better, too (we SO need to kick corporations out of government!).

        :-)  I see you're in fine form yourself tonight!


        by NonnyO on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:29:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, this is a moronic move (8+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure this isn't self-evident, but isn't "payback" kind of the wrong way to start an era of bipartisan attention to real problems?

    I don't dispute that much of the Bush administration's actions are "unpardonable" (pardon the, er, non-pun) but impeachment was designed as a political exercise to remove somebody from power which they were adjudged to be exercising improperly in lieu of an election. We've had our election. Short of Bush about to hand over our nuclear codes to Ahmadinejad, I don't think there's anything in pardons, etc. that approaches the awfully high threshold of national crisis that impeachment deserves.

    To impeach now would be to cheapen it for when it may be necessary in future years (much as happened with the 98 impeachment).

    I pity the netroots if this is the kind of action we're seriously contemplating. We might as well join Madame Defarge and break out the knitting needles.

  •  Points for the great alliteration but not for the (3+ / 0-)

    idea.  Bush and Cheney are defacto impeached already.  Our fire is needed elsewhere.

  •  hi buhdy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise, buhdydharma, 4Freedom, cgirard

    I almost feel like I should argue with your diary for ole time's sake or something, lol.

    But I won't. I mean let's face it, there is zero chance the lame duck congress would consider this. They didn't even really try to stop (or worse, actively helped pass) some of Bush's wartime/intelligence requests.

    John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

    by taylormattd on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:58:50 PM PST

  •  Fuck YEAH! (7+ / 0-)

    Everybody knows how I feel about this.

  •  throw the book at 'em. (8+ / 0-)


    We don't have time for short-term thinking.

    by Compound F on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:17:06 PM PST

  •  Lifetime disbarrment is optional, (5+ / 0-)

    but otherwise a great diary!

    Aren't the 700+ signing statements (at last count) prima facie evidence that Bush has deliberately flouted his oath to "faithfully execute the Law"?

  •  with 47+ percent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    magurakurin, Timbuk3, buhdydharma

    of vote going to McCain, why would one think impeachment, while so obviously felt warranted here, would succeed.  Face it folks, this country is 45% ignorant, uninformed and doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. Most pundits are wrapped up about whether Palin gets to keep her wardrobe.  We are lucky we are not yet fascist.

  •  Too late, sadly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shih Tzu, buhdydharma

    It would seem petty and vindictive, the numbers aren't there, and there just isn't time.  Far better to deal with this after Bush leaves office in the criminal courts and in the ICC.

    "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

    by fishhead on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:20:16 PM PST

  •  from your keyboard to God's ears n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skid, buhdydharma, NonnyO, cgirard
  •  Just in time for Thanksgiving!! (7+ / 0-)



  •  Yes. Impeach now. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skid, buhdydharma, NonnyO

    If the rule of law is respected, impeachment must begin.

  •  I love this site. (6+ / 0-)

    Folks here don't write about what is happening.
    They change what is happening.

    Here in America, our destiny is not written for us - it's written by us. Barack Obama 9/28/08

    by quadmom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:28:26 PM PST

  •  Never going to happen. Period. (4+ / 0-)

    I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers

    by thestructureguy on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:29:40 PM PST

  •  Not only is it not going to happen but such a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    move would be nearly as big an opportunity lost as  when Bush chose to use post 9/11 coming together as a springboard to Iraq. Congress didn't do it's job when it should have done it and now that time is over.

    •  Wrong. Now is the time for spine. (5+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but you make a crappy political strategist, the kind we have seen out of the Dems for the last 8+ years. That strategy has FAILED. What has saved the Dems is the phenom named Barack Obama and the seperate hopes of those who have finally had enough. You sound more like Pelosi or Hoyer. Ugh.

      "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

      by Skid on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:23:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see, large Democratic gains in 2006. (0+ / 0-)

        More gains plus the presidency in 2008. Yeah I'd say that strategy has failed miserably.

        •  By Bush's hand, not our Dems. Don't fool yourself (0+ / 0-)

          Our weak Dems caved in and enabled Bush's crap just so that they didn't look as weak as they were. Seriously, wake up.

          "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

          by Skid on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This Country (5+ / 0-)

    Needs To Bring Accountability, Not Only For It's Own Survival But In Asking Forgiveness To The World For The Crimes Committed, Especially To The Iraqi And Afghan People!!!!

    But also to those who will be in the line of the Blowback that already has started!!

    "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

    by jimstaro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:30:31 PM PST

  •  Haven't we been doing this for years? (5+ / 0-)

    I've been fighting for this since Katrina (would that I had started sooner.)  I became an Independent over this issue, and since 2006.  Oh I am still ideologically a Democrat... but there must be consequences for criminal behavior in the White House; for crimes against our Constitution, against the Geneva Conventions -- for outright tyranny.  If nothing is done, it will just happen again.  Just as laws only work if they are enforced, our democracy is only safe from the imperial ambitions of presidents if there are consequences for criminal behavior.

    If Ford hadn't 'ended our national nightmare' we might well have been spared Cheney and Rumsfeld.  I believe Obama gets it.  I don't however believe that Pelosi or Reid will ever get it.  I know my congressman Baron Hill doesn't get it, because he told me flat out that he didn't want to get involved in anything that would hurt his good working relationship with his republican colleagues.  These guys (the democrats) are all back -- we re-elected them.  Its not going to happen.  

    And we'd better cross our fingers and pray (if we are the praying kind) that Bush doesn't start another war on his way out the door to undermine Obama's presidency. He has the power to do whatever he wants.  Congress gave it to him.

    Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by feduphoosier on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM PST

  •  Won't happen. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "It's no wonder more people call themselves Democrats; it's easy to identify with a party that identifies with you." --srmjjg

    by Dragon5616 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM PST

  •  One deserved pardon is worth 100 undeserved ones. (0+ / 0-)

    Punishment has its place, but mercy is much more important. (Similarly, it is much more important to ensure that someone who has the right to vote is able to vote than it is to prevent 10 possible cases of "voter fraud".)

    I bemoan the prioritization of punishment. It will not prevent future crimes. Implementation of hate is not good, whether that hate is my own hate for the monsters that run the government now, or the hate that riot police have for demonstrators.

    Let's just make sure to get the right laws in place as soon as possible. IMHO, helping those who have suffered is much more important that punishing those who caused that suffering.

    •  First, fix the problems caused by these monsters, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      then, when there is no chance it will get in the way of progress, investigate the monsters.

    •  Mercy? (0+ / 0-)

      If justice isn't served for the 8 year nightmare that we have all endured she should simply starve and put down the scales.

      We don't need to all get along and let bygones be bygones. We need some goddamn long prison sentences in order to keep the creeps from ever again considering committing more crimes against humanity, common decency, and the nation.

      Take Ted Stevens for instance. Found guilty of corruption by a jury of his peers. Might still win reelection.

      Miserable. Hang the old bastard. Lessons never come easy, but they need to be learned.

      •  but not if ANYONE is hurt who should not be. (0+ / 0-)

        I, too, thought about impeachment (and much more) all the time, but now I just want to get going on fixing things.  Ted Stevens could end up being the model for what happens after diverting the Congress's time and energy from the massive list of other important things that need to be done (that is, nothing happened to Steve, anyway).  Moreover, we could lose votes on things that could make a big difference in the quality of life for many Americans.  It is not worth it.

        (Btw, I never punished my kids and they never ever got in trouble.  I just taught them to look at things from the other point of view.  Punishment is over-rated.  It is not an effective deterrent.)

  •  once more for ol' times sake... (0+ / 0-)

    Hey, how 'bout we impeach the people who are supposed to do the impeaching and get some other impeachers who are more impeachy?

    by ronny mermaid on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:33:21 PM PST

  •  He pardoned Libby already (0+ / 0-)

    who else is has been caught ?

    "Rosa sat down so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack is running so our children can fly."

    by lawnorder on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:33:57 PM PST

  •  Bush can't pardon himself (0+ / 0-)

    I don't see them suddenly mounting an impeachment on anyone.

  •  Excellent idea - just the threat of it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joeyess, cgirard

    you issue pardons - we impeach and prosecute you


    by JLFinch on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:37:28 PM PST

    •  Can he pardon people who have (0+ / 0-)

      yet to tried or convicted?  Maybe the important thing is just to make sure those people are tried for their actions including the President and VP.  

      I'm an American I can handle the truth!

      by stas61690 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:59:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It would be nice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary Julia

    if Bush could be impeached before the end of his term so he can't do any further damage between now and 1/20/09, but it's not going to happen.  Even if Nancy Pelosi allowed impeachment to go forward, and even if you could get the House to vote for impeachment, you'd never be able to get the Senate to vote for removal.  And I'd be willing to bet that it would be spun by the corporate media as a petty political stunt, and that the rational justifications for impeachment and removal would never be brought up for discussion.  Most people would wonder why Congress was wasting time on impeaching a president who has only two months left in office, when there are much more important problems that require immediate attention.

    Impeachment and removal would be nice, but even attempting to do so would be a huge tactical error.  Obama and Democrats have a nice mandate right now, and I'd hate to see it squandered on something that's bound to blow up in our faces.

    •  there are excellent reasons for (0+ / 0-)

      proceeding with impeachment even with 2 months or no months remaining.  would save the nation millions upon millions upon millions of dollars.  

      Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day - Thomas Jefferson

      by RadicalGardener on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there were a chance of it being successful (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        then yes, it might.  But the chances of actually impeaching Bush, and Cheney, and removing them both from office, are so remote as to be alomst nonexistent.  And if such an effort were made, it would be a tremendously wasteful expenditure of time, money, and energy, and would probably slam the brakes on the political momentum that we have right now to enact real and lasting change.  As much as I'd love to see Bush and Cheney rousted out of office right now, I think that actually attempting something like this would be idiotic and counterproductive.

  •  The ship has sailed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    magurakurin, Shih Tzu, japangypsy

    on impeachment. If impeachment were right, it should have happened right after the 2006. Belatedly impeaching Bush after this election would be a complete and utter disaster, in my estimation. I realize that it pains some people to see someone who wrecked so much get off scot-free, but now is the time to look forward.

  •  If impeachment's off the table (10+ / 0-)

    it's time to get another table.  One in the Hague.

    "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

    by KateCrashes on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:38:46 PM PST

    •  Complicated (0+ / 0-)

      The issue of the Hague has been the subject of several diaries and many comments. First, because the USA is not a party to the ICC there is a juristiction issue. There are ways around this but it would take a lot of political will from one of our closest allies to make this happen. The bottom line is while it's possible to bring BushCo to The Hague, it's very difficult and likely will not happen.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Almost speechless ... (7+ / 0-)

    I've been reading your diaries on this subject for how many months ... years now, and I've always tendered a wry grin in private at the righteous nobility in your assertions battling so ferociously with the shockingly naive political awareness so evinced, but this ... less than a week after the most historic, inspirational election in US history, you want to engage in one of the ugliest most politically fraught actions in US history?

    We're all with you that the Bushies deserve something far worse than a quiet retirement to the private sector, but didn't your mother ever teach you that life isn't fair, that what we want isn't always what we get ... or even what we should get?  Our political landscape is fractured right now between competing ideological positions, but with the impending civil war on the right, and the charisma and almost limitless potential of President Elect Obama, we stand poised to be able draw together a monumental coalition of moderates and progressives, small business and big business, doctors and lawyers, etc ... to address the very real crises that are currently afflicting not just us but the entire world.  And you're still hung up on impeachment??

    Do you honestly think the rest of the world gives a shit at this point?  They're more jubilant than we are at Tuesdays results, and they are rightly looking forward, not back.  Who are you trying to impress, who do you think we need to send a message to ... at least need so badly as to risk sabotaging even before it gets started the massive undertaking required over the next 4-8 years.  Come on man, get off the one-trick pony and join the rest of us in trying to usher in a new era.

    •  Tho' my heart sympathizes with buhdy's aims (0+ / 0-)

      -- I mean, how can you argue with Truth, Justice, and the American Way, i.e., the Constitution -- my logical self agrees with your pragmatism.  I just wanna see our guy Barack provide the leadership to set this ship aright in the next four years; if he can accomplish that, and the signs are positive at this juncture, us Dems oughtta be in a sweet spot for some years to come, with the repubs relegated to nuisance minority status.  Your tone's a bit harsh, doncha think?  

      •  As to my tone ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I don't think I would say harsh ... I'd say frustrated, at the fact that this has got to be buhdy's 20th diary on impeachment ... and they seem to be getting more and more ridiculous as the timeframe during which an impeachment could be conducted gets shorter and shorter.

        Buhdy has become a pretty prominent diarist here (though most of that might come from these borderline ridiculous impeachment diaries) and I just feel that with that prominence comes some degree of responsibility, be it pragmatic or purely intellectual.  I guess every community needs it's reactionary element, but in light of what we have just accomplished and what we ought to be setting out to do, diaries like this have become more than absurd and less than constructive.

  •  Given that there's a 0% chance (5+ / 0-)

    that it's going to happen, I just have to ask why anyone's even bothering to push for it? Is the point to remind everyone of the crimes of the Bush administration, so that they not be forgotten and swept under the rug as we bask in the glow of this incredible victory and prepare to usher in a new and hopefully vastly better administration--under the mantle of impeachment? Or is the point to actually make impeachment happen? Because if it's the former, I can understand, but if it's the latter, um, huh?

    Because it's NOT GONNA HAPPEN (whether or not it should, which obviously it should).

    Or is there some sort of motivation here to impose a purity test of sorts on Obama and the Dem leadership--that everyone knows they will fail--before they even take over, that will allow those who impose this test to announce "Aha! You see! They're not REAL Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, and are just as bad as the Bushies!"?

    I mean, pushing for things that are tough but doable is one thing--e.g. getting out of Iraq, universal health, etc. But pushing for things that are impossible and undoable--e.g. impeachment--I have to wonder about, in terms of underlying motivations. Not saying that they're BAD motivations, just wondering what they actually are. Because clearly, they can't possibly be actually impeaching them, because no rational person can believe that that's actually going to happen at this point, much as I wish it could.

    And if proven wrong, I will eat my UID. :-)

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

    by kovie on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:45:46 PM PST

    •  It should happen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, cgirard

      because we are a country of laws, based on justice for all. If you believe this, you have to be for it. It might be hard on the country for it, or it might be harder on the country if it is not done.
       I don,t think it will be done. The American experiment is still in its infancy. Besides too many Democrats would have to testify in Bush's defense because of their culpability.

      "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

      by Klick2con10ue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:04:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do you really think Obama is going to go (0+ / 0-)

    after them?  

  •  "We must all work together." How many times has (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    magurakurin, andrewj54

    Barack sent this signal? As of today, I lost count. Impeachment ain't gonna happen. Politically, falls under, coulda, shoulda for us. As far as Bush starting another war or worldwide disaster, his goose is cooked--burnt toast. Barack is beloved worldwide, his power is eminenet, a done deal. My money says, there are a whole lotta worldwide deals already made, we know nada about and never will. Those CIA briefings go way beyond what our angry violated constitution impeachment stance can muster.

  •  It's too late for this (8+ / 0-)

    and the world isn't fair.  I'm not even sure it's worth fighting for.  Bush is a criminal and deserves to be punished, but it won't happen.  The best thing we can try to do is save our country and try to turn back all that he has done.  The thing he wants the most, his legacy, is destroyed.  A small comfort, but it's all we are going to get out of this.

    This is not the way to heal a divided country.  Period.

    •  And it makes no sense even on its own terms (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, crackerdog

      If Bush saw he was going to be impeached (you can't exactly surprise someone with this), he'd just expedite any pardons he was considering.

      -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

      by Rich in PA on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:54:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This country is not going to heal. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Never has, never will.

      "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

      by Klick2con10ue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:07:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well if we all think like you (0+ / 0-)

        then it surely never will heal.

        "Imagine all the people..."

        Impeachment revenge or health care?

        Impeachment or health care?

        I'll go for the health care.

        As some people have said. Life isn't fair. Justice is not always served. Stalin died peacefully in his bed. Johnson and McNamara killed way more Vietnamese than Bush and Rumsfeld killed Iraqis. They weren't punished either.

        And anyway, like the Kilgons say "revenge is a dish best served cold." Bush and his crew still have karma to deal with. They may slip away on Januray 20, but the reckoning may come. Pinochet eventually found his way into the docket.

        •  You "feel" that it (0+ / 0-)

          is an either/or situation. It is not. This is not frivolity. It is not revenge. It is exercising the justice system as it was designed to operate. Most of the work will be done by a special prosecutor, not congress, until the decision to impeach begins. And it is a reasonably short process. If justice is not important lets just do away with the supreme court and  lessor courts and put that money toward healthcare.

          "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

          by Klick2con10ue on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:53:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  never too late (0+ / 0-)

      never. ever.

      nazi's are still put trial to this DAY for crimes
      committed in the 1940's.

  •  All for impeachment, but this senario (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fishhead, 3cardmonty, MacGumaraid, cgirard



    "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson

    by Klick2con10ue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM PST

  •  Absolutely. (0+ / 0-)

    You don't heal a serious invfection without diagnosing and treating it.

    "We must become the change we want to see." -Gandhi

    by larryrant on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:00:00 PM PST

  •  we should start an over/under on how many (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shih Tzu

    pardons bush will dump on his way out...i'll say 212

    james jamerson: genius!

    by memofromturner on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM PST

  •  Move on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary Julia

    Sorry, Clinton fucked up the first 100 days of his first term, Obama is a reader...  He won't make the same mistakes.  In fact, I hate Holy Joe as much as most of you...  But does it even make sense to make him walk the plank at this point?  I absolutely agree he ought to lose his chairmanship and if he bolts, so be it.  But throwing him out is a mistake.  It makes it look like we're the dicks.  No, piss on him and make him stand at the back of the room but keep him in the caucus if he'll stay, given those terms.

    Impeachment now?  Not smart and a waste of energy we could use for important issues.

    Let the international courts try Bush.  And then turn him over when the time comes.  Imagine the FBI hauling him off his ranch, in cuffs, to take him to a plane to Europe.  A lovely day, that'd be.

    •  I don't think the scenario (0+ / 0-)

      you propose can happen.  

      First of all, the FBI would never take orders from an international agency to extradite a former president.

      Second, I do not believe the USA is a member nation in the ICC at the Hague.

      Third, the reason for this is that our justice system is considered among the finest in the world and a model for those of emerging nations.  The ICC at the Hague doesnot mess with cases originating in countries with a judicial system capable of doing the job itself.

      From wikipedia:

      The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[10] The Court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[11][12] Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.[13]

      Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day - Thomas Jefferson

      by RadicalGardener on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:11:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clarification (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not suggesting the FBI would take orders from anyone outside the US.  But they'd be the ones to take him into custody if we were working with the Hague at a higher level.

        To your second point, this would mean we'd have signed on as a member nation in the ICC.  This could happen.

        To your third, I think if the second point I make above were true, the UN would take action.

        But I admit, it's a longshot.

  •  give up the impeachment talk (5+ / 0-)

    it's not going to happen

    history will judge these scoundrels

  •  Can't impeach, CAN do other things (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peggy, cgirard

    I'm afraid we'll be settling for the pardons and the non-impeachment.  Pelosi, Reid, and the aforementioned arguments abou the timeframe just make it impractical.

    We can support:

    * Bugliosi's call for a DA to bring murder charges against Bush etc. on behalf of a family who lost someone in Iraq.

    * Obama signing us into the International Criminal Court.  AFAIK--and I may be wrong--that will allow other nations to issue warrants of arrest which we can execute.  

    For many Americans, the blizzard of pardons will be the wake-up call.  Following the pardons and an ensuing media frenzy we'll help whip into hurricane force, support for the prosecution of the Bastard's Club will grow.

    Our Moment is... (ding!) Now.

    by Leftcandid on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:16:20 PM PST

    •  i believe the international court (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justintime, jayskew

      at the hague exists for the prosecution of cases originating in countries where the justice system is corrupt.  that's why all these little balkan tyrants end up there; there's no one at home to run the courts fairly.

      the international community will never make that judgment about the USA.

      Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day - Thomas Jefferson

      by RadicalGardener on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:57:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but as i write this ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        i wonder then why henry kissinger is afraid to step foot outside the usa.  apparently he was almost arrrested by police in paris within the last few years.  

        the case of pinochet was pursued by Spain's judicial system who intended to prosecute him for the death of spanish citizens.  the spanish govt. needed to have the english government extradite him from his place in exile outside london, so he could be tried in spain.  not quite the same thing.  

        Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day - Thomas Jefferson

        by RadicalGardener on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:01:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, I think the whole notion of an American (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      leader, even one as unpopular as GWB, being seized and brought to trial at the behest of a foreign court would raise the hackles of a broad spectrum of the US voting public, and would have such disastrous political results that it would jeopardize the positive results of this week's election.   I could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

  •  still with ya on this one, budhy (5+ / 0-)

    Wish we could finally do a real poll asking the American people what they want, and then make sure it gets some visibility..  

    If only Americans had agonized over every detail of the candidate's history when deciding to vote for GWB as they did with Barack Obama.

    by lisastar on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:18:03 PM PST

  •  I think we have more important things to do (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andrewj54, brjzn

    such as helping the millions who have lost their jobs and ending poverty and fixing the education system and ending the war in iraq.

    by GlowNZ on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:19:20 PM PST

  •  There is no such thing as premptive pardons (2+ / 0-)

    They have to be convicted first.. This can all be done after January. In fact the death penalty could be issued for any torture that resulted in the loss of life. Including explicit action by the individuals in the executive branch that violated the law and led to the killing of individuals. Just like the Nazis in WWII we need to hold these barbaric criminals to justice and show the world and the rest of the nation it will not be tolerated. And if Bush goes to Paraguay to run we should hunt him down and bring him back.

    •  Not true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There's no such provision in the pardon clause of the constitution. In fact, preemptive pardons have been granted in the past, although the courts did decide that it was the recipient's prerogative to refuse them if they so chose.

      I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
      -5.38, -6.41

      by sullivanst on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:48:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Constitution does not grant vast powers (0+ / 0-)

        The purpose of the Constitution was to establish limited government, and the presidential powers granted are amazingly small. For example, even the power of the President to appoint anyone to any office (other than temporarily) is not inherent -- it is delegated by Congress (see Article II).

        If the pardon power is to be construed as extending beyond the precedents that defined the meaning of "pardon" to the Framers, where shall we stop? Preemptive pardon of everyone in an administration for any past or future offenses against particular laws, perhaps? This would be equivalent to presidential repeal of sections of the criminal code (in a discriminatory way, no less!) and is obviously not a power granted by the Constitution. Even more limited forms of preemptive pardon would provide a dangerous power.

        Some Presidents have asserted the granting of a preemptive pardon, and no one subsequently prosecuted, but this does not establish a precedent in a court of law. The case against allowing a President to pardon where there has been no conviction is strong and fundamental: Accepting  preemptive pardon would undermine rule of law, and the reasons we find it noxious are grounded in sound principles of governance. To accept it would be an invitation to corruption and unchecked presidential power.

        If Bush tries this one, I would advocate ignoring the so-called "pardons" with the intention of setting a genuine precedent against such things.

        The medium shapes the message, and a social medium shapes the quality of the thinking that shapes the message.

        by technopolitical on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:52:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Supreme Court precedent exists (0+ / 0-)

          From Slate:

          In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time—regardless of whether charges have even been filed.

          There's also the even more dubious case of Ford pardoning Nixon, in a case involving impeachment. Your argument that that was not precedent-setting may be more important there, although of course impeachment proceedings only remove someone from office, they don't apply afterwards.

          The President's pardoning power is extremely broad.

          I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
          -5.38, -6.41

          by sullivanst on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:09:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  i agree with you completely (3+ / 0-)

      we are a nation of laws, not men. but what was it gerald ford gave richard nixon?  wasn't that preemptive? was there some legal distinction?

      Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day - Thomas Jefferson

      by RadicalGardener on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:54:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course there are pre-emptive pardons (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nightprowlkitty, snafubar, NonnyO, VClib

      Richard Nixon got one from President Ford.

    •  What was Nixon convicted of before his pardon? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, Nightprowlkitty, NonnyO, VClib
      •  He wasn't... (0+ / 0-)

        Nixon wasn't charged with anything or brought to trial.

        He was pardoned for any crimes he may have committed between certain dates listed in the pardon... signed by Gerald Ford.  That action alone is what made Ford so unpopular.

        Ford was appointed to replace Agnew, then not long after he took Nixon's place.  Of Ford, Wikipedia says:

        He was the first person appointed to the vice-presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment, and became President upon Richard Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. Ford was the fifth U.S. President never to have been elected to that position, and the only one never to have won any national election.


        by NonnyO on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:43:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Jesus Christ (3+ / 0-)

    let it go.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:28:05 PM PST

    •  I'm sure you're right. It's only war crimes and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rachel Griffiths


      It's not like it's lying about a blowjob.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:02:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your first sentence was reasonable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but your second sentence reveals the real issue for you.  You're  pissed off that Clinton was impeached for  nonsense,  while Bush got away  with real crimes.  I feel your pain.  But unless there's a  reasonable path to impeachment,  and it won't completely sidetrack the country  for 12 months and cost the  new President  a lot of his's time to find  a productive outlet f for that rage.

        "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

        by SpiderStumbled22 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your missing my point entirely (0+ / 0-)

          The entire idea that we measure what is punishable by what will gather enough popular will to hold a trial is an absolutely gut-wrenching, sickening, abhorrent idea and it should be to all of us.

          Because it reveals the same type of mentality that allowed witches to be burned at the stake.

          I don't give a fuck who blows who, but I should care who blows up who.

          And the real problem we face is the self-righteousness that religion gives people that would allow them to stand up in numbers large enough to express outrage about ALL crimes, not just the ones their Bible makes them feel are important, we're all going to drown for it.

          Prop 8 is just another witch hunt. Read my diaries about it (i'm too tired to link)

          We have a sickenginly large population in this country who have a blind eye to their own indiscretions while having bloodlust for everyone who sneezes when they don't think it's appropriate.

          That dooms the whole population.

          so "productive" outlets for my rage are anywhere it can be heard until everyone gets the fucking point.

          I still hear my neighbors tell me that Acorn led to the financial meltdown -

          Now where do you go from there? You don't sit around and hope the mood of the crowd changes, you throw a pitchfork in their face and say "prove it, or shut the fuck up and get off the stage".

          Because our "respect" for parlimentary proceedures and the popular will of stupid and shameless people is going to drown us all.

          If you want to understsand that Democracy can indeed have fatal flaws, just keep in mind that in the LA riots of 1965 and 1992 you were seeing nothing more than the popular will of the people in it's most primitive, but none the less legitimate, form.

          Now - if we can't manage to muster enough popular will to be able to prioritize which of our current problems is the one that is actually going to cause us all to drown because one group thinks they have the answer when that answer is wrong, it's time to pick up a rock settle this thing while we still have time to save the ship.

          The REAL issue for ME????

          For ME??????

          If you've still got that in your head you don't undertsand anything I said.

          I don't give a shit whether I die in the next five minutes. Given how pissed my neighbor is at me right now and that he has a gun collection and I don't own one that might happen sooner rather than later.

          the only issue for ME is US. and that means we get up and tell the stupid people that we're not going to let them chart our course any more. ANd if we're outnumbered, well then we stop being polite about it andc we escalate as needed to get the job done.

          A group of people did that around the mid 1770's in America. Maybe you've heard about it?

          Sorry for my typos, I'm wound to tight to correct at this moment.

          There is no time for gloves in this fight any more we are on the virge of losing not just our economic power, but since we have indeed established ourselves as the worlds economic driving force and everyone is tied to us - if you thought "they" hated us before, wait until the whole world finds out that it was our greed and lust for power that caused the whole planet to go into a prolonged recession/depression - they you'll see what hatred tor the US looks like.

          So, for right now, if we know Bush is guilty, (and we do) we don't keep being polite about it and check whether we're still within Robert's Rules of order.

          do it already.

          Just do it.

          Reasonable path?

          How about backing Kucinich up and at least getting him on TV sometime other than 3 AM when the infomercials are on and showing the country what we've got so we can gather the popular will.

          They managed to get the blowjob thing to come out of the financed private investigations of Richard Mellons Scaife that started the day Clinton took the oath in 1992 - it took them six years - but they were able to mount popular will for that when there was no there there.

          now the there is there, why can't we do this thing already?

          I gotta go. Sorry. This is personal because Democrats are too fucking polite. We can't afford to be using gloves in this fight, especially "kid" ones.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:15:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you were serious about a criminal prosecution (0+ / 0-)

            of their crimes, then you would have nothing to do with a quicky impeachment.

            "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

            by SpiderStumbled22 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:00:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  These all or nothing propositions disappoint me (0+ / 0-)

              Find anywhere I said "quicky impeachment".

              I didn't .

              What I want is a start - anything - some kind of beginning to the process. The kind of things that John Conyers has been forced to hold in office building basements outside the Capitol when the Repulicans would not allow him to hold them inside the Capitol.

              Since 2006 when we had the parlimentary power to dodge that kind of stonewalling, we've seen nothing.

              So I challenge you to present me with any suggestion that any effort is being made at all to punish the guilty, and if not (as there is no evidence) where would YOU suggest we start the ball rolling?

              Seriously - you completely ignored the example I gave you of how the impeachment of Clinton got it's non-existent legs. They started with a rumor of conduct that took place before Clinton was even president (troopergate, the original) which was about a blowjob, and they went to Whitewater which was a real estate deal Clinton lost money on, and they eventually found Paula Jones, Linda Tripp and Monica - now what if any of that had to do with the country?  


              So please tell me that after eight years of watching Bush commit punishable crimes - treason is punishsable by death, just ask the Rosenbergs - and tell me why nothing has been done yet.

              Because we didn't have the votes?

              The vote to impeach Clinton was razor thin and those Democrats who voted to impeach were certainly not on board when the process started. Only after the investigation had dragged on for two years and led to "i did not have sexual relations with that woman" did the Democrats finally get on Board.

              Scooter Libby got a conviction for chrissakes, and a "commutation" from Bush. Now why can't we pick that up and run with it?  

              When do you offer me any evidence you start any proceedings at all?

              I invite you to watch the last five minutes of "Clear and PResent Danger" with Harrison Ford playing Jack Ryan. The President says,

              "Jack this country can't stand another scandal that goes all the way to the top, so...(and he lays out a process where a bunch of underlings take the fall without doing any real time and then wind up getting rich writing their memoirs and giving lectures)'s the old Potomac Two-Step".

              Ryan says "I'm sorry Mr President, I don't dance".

              The point I keep trying to make is that this country with all it's flags and anthems and Lee Greenwood songs doesn't want to admit we have betrayed everything we stand for.

              SO if you can't get the peopel to believe it, who has to do this thing? The Congress- the representatives of the people.

              Now if we can't even hold one hearing so that some small percentage of hte evidence comes out, which will - like it did with Clinton - lead to other evidence - then you have sold out.

              You have sold out.

              You have sold out.

              We can't start impeachment hearings and have Bush and Cheney standing at the gallows by sundown, but we can at least get something started - and that is the crime I charge Pelosi and Reid with is that they even refused to lift a finger at all.

              I've said all I will say. If it's not clear by now where I am coming from and what my intentions are, I have nothing more I can offer.

              don't dare tell me I'm not serious. You have no idea who I am or what I've done, and that's not just insulting, it's offensive.

              It's a goddamn shame that I have lost all my friends, and my family won't talk to me any more if I'm not serious.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:58:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  true but i`m not as forgiving as Jesus n/t (0+ / 0-)

      O world,no world,but mass of public wrongs,confused and filled with murder and misdeeds

      by Brian B on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 03:03:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hear Hear ! (6+ / 0-)

    Once more into the breach, my friends!

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:28:41 PM PST

  •  Didn't Kucinich already lay out the case? nt (4+ / 0-)

    "But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you." Barack Obama

    by UTvoter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:33:14 PM PST

    •  Yes, he did (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The impeachment resolutions against BOTH Cheney and Bush (two, actually, for him) that Dennis Kucinich authored and brought to the floor of the House are gathering dust in the Judiciary Committee.

      There was a hearing before the HJC a few months ago about "abuses of power" committed by this administration (Pelosi and Conyers forbad any mention of impeachment, but it was mentioned anyway by the witnesses).  Bruce Fein told them how a quickie impeachment could be done (just impeach for those offenses they've confessed to doing on video tape already), and that would eliminate the need for a long drawn-out investigation for the other offenses (altho Kucinich already cited chapter and verse the violations of law in his resolutions).

      Vincent Bugliosi also talked about how Bush could be tried by states for murder for those who have been killed in Iraq for lies for oil (he wrote a book about it).

      Remember how fast the last FISA fiasco passed the House and went to the Senate?  With no prior warning or reading (and no time for any of the Reps to read it), Pelosi brought it to the floor, one hour of debate was scheduled and over with in practically no time flat, it was voted on, and sent to the Senate the same day.  If the Senate had not taken a break to attend someone's funeral, it would have been debated for one hour and voted on in the Senate the following day, but they took a two or three day break (including the weekend), briefly "debated" the bill and it was passed in less than one day.  Total time:  less than seven days.

      Impeachment could take place on the known crimes and lies of Dickie and Georgie (and remember, Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress so there's precedent; he was found not guilty in the Senate) in less than a week...!  Kucinich's resolutions are in HJC ready to go; it just takes someone with courage to bring the resolutions to the floor of the House, vote on them, and send them to the Senate the same day.


      by NonnyO on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:19:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry guys (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andrewj54, steve234

    The time and need for this has already passed. This diary should be replaced on the rec list with a Jim Martin diary, a recount diary or anything that actually resembles reality.

  •  President can still pardon under impeachment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfood, Endangered Alaskan Dem

    He just can't pardon impeachments themselves.

    I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
    -5.38, -6.41

    by sullivanst on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:52:06 PM PST

  •  Impeach for our troops, who will be/are the first (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raatz, justintime, snafubar, NonnyO, cgirard

    to suffer for our use of torture.

    If we do not hold the torturers accountable, it is our troops who will pay the price.

    Events are in the saddle and ride mankind. Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by 4Freedom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:54:23 PM PST

  •  The president can't pre-emptively pardon, can he? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flecktones, cgirard

    Unless that's part of the Bush Doctrine nobody noticed.

    One argument against the earlier prosecution of administration crimes might have been that any convictions could be essentially overturned by the president with the pardon pen.

    However, after January 20, nobody has protection, not even Bush.

    I take some faith in the report that Obama and the Democratic Party has had people assembled to keep a very close eye on what Bush has done, is doing, and may still do. They've been working quietly and away from the spotlight, conducting close observations of administration activity, particularly over the past several months. I'm sure they're uncovering a lot of dirt in addition to the expected shenanigans.

    I'm also encouraged by Biden's remarks during the campaign to the effect that nobody is above the law, "not even the vice-president."

    Is that enough to make me believe that prosecutions will happen? Not on their own.

    So the message has to be sent: the crimes of this administration, both high and low, cannot be allowed to stand and fade into history. Will the new administration listen? I guess it depends on how loud the people are.

    "This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change." -- Nov. 4, 2008

    by BobzCat on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM PST

    •  Sure the president can pre-emptively pardon (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobzCat, jayskew, Spekkio

      It's been done before, famously.

      "Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974." -- Gerald Ford, September 8, 1974

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      by Buckeye Hamburger on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:36:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Keep yelling, buhdy! (4+ / 0-)

    Whether it happens or not, you're absolutely right that these crimes need to be talked about and not just swept under the rug in the name of moving on.  This newbie is with you.


    "I hope for peace and sanity-it's the same thing." Studs Terkel

    by cgirard on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:00:29 PM PST

  •  O HAI (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brainwave, flecktones, cgirard


    Nancy Pelosi
    Harry Reid
    Other Leading Democrats from 2002-2008

  •  Impeachment is removal from office (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    My Stupid Opinion

    The idea is stupid at this point. Investigate and charge with crimes if applicable.


    Mitch Gore

    Proud to support President-elect Obama

    by Lestatdelc on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:01:21 PM PST

    •  No it is not. (7+ / 0-)

      Impeachment is analagous to indictment.  Removal from office is accomplished only by conviction.  Impeachment may prevent pardons.

      •  Where do you get the notion that a mere (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        My Stupid Opinion

        impeachment can prevent the president from issuing pardons?

        "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

        by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:28:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 (0+ / 0-)

          The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

          It is unclear as to WHOSE impeachment the clause refers.

          •  It's plenty clear. (0+ / 0-)

            It's unambiguous, and even if it were, the argument would have to be that the founders intended that an impeached but not convicted president would remain able to veto bills, command the troops, be the sole diplomatic voice of the country, nominate supreme court justices, but not issue pardons.  There's no proof of that.

            More reasonble is to find that presidents can't hinder the power of congress to remove officials, even if he can prevent their criminal conviction.  IOW, exactly how it reads.

      •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)

        Impeachment may prevent pardons.

        There is zero constitutional basis for this assertion. You are technically correct that impeachment is not directly removal form office, but rather it's a trial in the Senate for the purpose of removal from office, but my point still stands. This is a truly dumb idea that will accomplish nothing.

        Let him leave office, investigate now that we control the DoJ and the relevant agencies involved for criminal prosecution if we can.


        Mitch Gore

        Proud to support President-elect Obama

        by Lestatdelc on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:31:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  My god, seven people reced this comment. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Thanks, buhdy. (4+ / 0-)

    It's important to keep demonstrating to the world that at least a few Americans don't believe crimes against humanity should simply be swept under the rug, in our national spasm of self-congratulation and post-election eagerness to "move on."

    See the Dutch children's chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen's 29th annual spectacular November 8 on Dutch TV!

    by lotlizard on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:09:04 PM PST

  •  Pelosi does not believe Bush committed a crime. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, cgirard

    In her mind, He made "mistakes" perhaps, but not crimes. To think that this Congress, filled with crime-friendly loons, is going to impeach cheney/bush, is just not realistic.

    Yes, they got their heads up their ass... or up his ass... but that's how it is.

    This is the same congress that voted for Bush's FISA stuff.  let's be honest here.

    The determination of our President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success. is made evident by the puny opposition arrayed against him.

    by Tom J on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:10:38 PM PST

  •  We still don't have the votes. (0+ / 0-)

    Which is why it was "off the table", before.


    This time it's personal.

    by apostrophe on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:11:46 PM PST

    •  That's beautiful. The United States of America - (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave925, LaFajita, apostrophe

      the shining city on a hill, a beacon of truth, freedom, liberty, and individual protections against government oppression didn't have the votes to prosecute it's own leaders when they committed the offenses that those leaders claimed they had the "moral authority" to punish other countries for.

      So the "moral authority" was defeated by lack of popular will to stand up for it.


      How are we going to explain that to our descendents?

      What possibly could explain it?

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:50:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The President can't pardon international crimes! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War crimes.

    This time it's personal.

    by apostrophe on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:14:54 PM PST

  •  you don't think the four days (2+ / 0-)

    of the lame duck session which is planned for(but might not happen during) the week before Thanksgiving, might have a few other issues to deal with than impeaching and then trying a president whose term of office ends two months later?

    More of these ravings at the website listed in my profile.

    by Barth on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:20:58 PM PST

  •  This statement is not true: (6+ / 0-)

    An impeached president cannot pardon.

    Bill Clinton was impeached.  He later issued pardons.

    You probably meant to say, "Presidents removed from office by an impeachment conviction cannot pardon."  There is no way that's happening by January 20.  Even if the process were started, Bush could simply issue his pardons the day before the Senate were to vote on an impeachment.  

    Kind of makes your whole diary pretty silly.

    "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:26:58 PM PST

  •  Impeachment or war crimes tribunal = mandatory (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dangangry, jayskew

    Obama needs to put this on his to-do list.

    I'm tired of seeing Bush and his cronies get away with shit. They should have been held accountable a long time ago.

    Conservatives are close-minded, shallow, superficial people that live in a fantasy world where everything is black and white and there are NO shades of gray.

    by Brad007 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:27:23 PM PST

  •  Howdy buhdy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naltikriti, flumptytail

    Dang, I hate to miss a good impeachment dust-up.  I had to work today and just got home.  I used to want Bush impeached, but now I only want him tied to an ant hill, covered with honey.  Or, at least, that's what I will want after Jan. 20th, 2009.

    We can have the Constitution or we can have Bush but, we can't have both.

    by Friend of the court on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:32:49 PM PST

  •  Can we please put this conversation on hold (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annan, dangangry

    until after the reins of power are transferred?  The last thing I want is for these freaks to panic.

  •  Too little, too late (0+ / 0-)

    It's time to prepare to lead the country now.  Pardons will come in due time, well before anyone could get an impeachment proceeding together.  It's too late.

    From parts of my state, you can see Canada AND North AND South Dakota AND Wisconsin AND Iowa. I'm an expert in international diplomacy AND interstate commerce!

    by FactsNotFiction on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM PST

  •  While I would love to see the Cheneys and Bushes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LNK, LaFajita

    of this world in stocks in our public square, I am not sure it is the best move.

    While we probably have enough of a majority now that we can push whatever agenda we want, that sort of vindictive behavior is not going to help our cause.

    Let's put more stringent regulations and accountability in place, punish the Ken Lays of the economic crisis, and make sure that no Bush ever gets elected again.  We need to make the wealthy lobbyists and supporters of the regime insignificant enough in influence that they are no longer relevant in politics .  Make life better for the working class and help them realize their folly in being a sucker to the propaganda that Bushians have used to manipulate them into doing their bidding.

    Losing relevancy is more than enough punishment for those bastards.

    Flee fro the prees and dwelle in sothfastnesse.

    by mismolly on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:46:05 PM PST

  •  this just makes me shake my head (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in disbelief.

    It would be the first principle of sane kindness that all forms of sacrifice would be avoided, if at all possible."--Adam Phillips

    by andrewj54 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:51:33 PM PST

  •  There will be pardons, even if impeachment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    My Stupid Opinion

    I had it on good authority from the beginning that even if Bush, Cheney were impeached.....they would be greated more like Nixon than like the criminal monsters that they allegedly are.

    Institutions protect their (own) idiots.

    Someone wrote that Cheney will be tied up in lawsuits......

    Meanwhile, until we control more of the media, we don't have enough leeway.

    Please join this effort:

    Media Reform Action Link

    by LNK on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:53:13 PM PST

  •  Impeachment CAN'T prevent pardons. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    My Stupid Opinion

    Unless impeachment can be done by surprise, Bush will have the hour, hour and a half tops to pardon everyone he wants.  All he needs is to fill in the name at the top of the form and sign it.  He can probably use initials for the pardoned to save time.

  •  It's about fucking time. I have repeated this (4+ / 0-)

    quote ad nauseum for the two years I have known it:

    When considering crimes committed in the name of a free society, some may be guilty, but all are responsible.

    - Abraham Joshua Heschel.

    We are the one country who had the freedom to choose any leader who was eligible. Either we chose Bush, or if you believe like I do that Bush stole the 2000 election and the 2004 election, we let the son of a bitch stay in office. So that's on our heads.

    So even after we let him take the oath of office, we must face the reality that we have the capacity to remove a corrupt leader from power without so much as a shot being fired. We chose for whatever reasons not to use that power.

    Even if we had to use force to overthrow corrupt leaders, we chose not to use that either. All of those 2nd Amendment heroes forget that one of the principle reasons we were granted the right to bear arms was to keep a check on any rogue government that went astray from our Constitutional principles and refused to obey the rule of law.

    So there we are with three reasons to act before the war crimes were actually committed.

    Then there was the illegal war. We are charter members with veto power in the United Nations; an organization that was created ostensibly to deal with "rogue" nations who disobeyed the judgement of what world community could be assembled; we have become the very reason that the UN was created.

    And lastly, but worst of all, we had the arrogant and shameless hubris to declare that Democracy was so utterly perfect that it deserved to be forced down the throat of a country we invaded using the most powerful military force ever assembled. How twisted, surreal, and unforgivable is it then to have to admit to the world that our leaders have betrayed the very ideals of democracy inherent in our own Constitution to declare the Executive to be superior and unquestionable and unstoppable by the legislature or the judiciary - effectively creating a post-election dictatorship.

    History is going to be unforgiving to us if we never make the effort to redeem ourselves.

    We weren't just a rogue nation with unforgivable hubris - we let millions die in Africa while we claimed we went into Iraq to save lives - but we had to betray the very principles of the democracy we claimed we were bringing to Iraq in order to be there in the first place.

    It's goddamn right we need to impeach these soulless and unforgivable bastards and bitches.

    They authorized torture and then cut loose the underlings who got caught in the act; then they went and strongarmed the congress to pass a law making all of it retroactively legal. How twisted is it that Lynndie England and Charles Grainer were convicted and served time for what the Military Comissions Act of 2005 later made entirely appropriate and permissable? And why were none of the other soldiers who's boots appear in the photos of Abu Ghraib guilty of dereliction of duty for not stopping what they must have known was illegal?

    It wasn't illegal if they were under orders, and we never had the courage to hold the bastards whos orders must have authorized it to account for what was done in our name.

    That's the rant I've been screaming for five years now.

    It's goddamn right that it's time for impeachment and if we don't do it, we all carry the scars.

    George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

    by snafubar on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:59:49 PM PST

  •  I'm with you Buhdy! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I still want to see the whole neo-con cadre frog-marched!  I don't have your way with words but the illegal actions of this administration cannot be allowed to stand.  Have a pony!

    the pony Pictures, Images and Photos

    Can we wait this long? Obama/Biden 08!!!! Impeach Bush/Cheney

    by dangangry on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:05:15 PM PST

  •  No, no, no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I hate those bastards worse than you do. They deserve to be stripped naked and walked around on leashes on TV the way Lyndie Engglund did to them. That includes President Bush.

    Justice will come.  Just have a care for the big picture, okay? Besides maybe throwing a big fat oil slick and tack bucket into the road just when the whole world loves us and loves Obama, this proposal for an immediate impeachment would accomplish nothing at all.

  •  I agree something must be done (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MsGrin, Loose Fur

    Our credibility is at stake in the eyes of the world and they're watching...
    Impeachment is probably not the answer for several reasons stated above.
    The Constitution has been shredded and needs to be restored. The current administration's crimes should not be allowed to go unpunished, if for no other reason than to prevent a precedent from taking place.
    How can we move forward without making sure justice prevails and steps are taken to ensure this never happens again? It will always be a dark cloud hanging over us if nothing is done, if good men/women stand by and do nothing.
    I'm glad some of the posters in here weren't in charge of deciding if Nazi war criminals should be hunted down and prosecuted.
    Murder is murder.

    Hey, Hannity! You're ugly and your mama dresses you funny!

    by forever blue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:14:28 PM PST

  •  ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Anyone convicted now will just be pardoned. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loose Fur, Aura

    Lets wait until AFTER the power to excuse crime has passed out of the criminals' hands.

  •  Impeach the Bush/Cheney Junta (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, Nightprowlkitty, MsGrin

    Still wearing my homemade buttons that say that.  Lately, people have been looking at them and saying, "Isn't it too late?"  I say it's never too late for the war crimes tribunal.  

    We need to air all the dirty laundry and prosecute the perpetrators.  If we don't, we will get even worse (hard to imagine) next time.  I am convinced that the failure to try Nixon led directly to the Bush/Cheney or Cheney/ Bush Junta.  No more.

    Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at solarray.

    by gmoke on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:43:41 PM PST

  •  I wish but (0+ / 0-)

    you have got to know by now that it ain't gonna happen.

  •  what is needed is a law (or amendment i guess) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annan, MsGrin, Loose Fur
    that prevents any president from pardoning any federal employee or any citizen when a conflict of interest exists.
  •  Unfortunately it's a complete waste of effort (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    First, because it's wrong. An impeached president can still pardon, unless he is also convicted. That requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. An extremely partisan body where our side barely even has enough votes to call itself the majority.

    It does not matter what evidence there is, nor how big an uproar is made. The notion of getting that body to convict is absurdly impossible.

    Second, because a trial would almost certainly take more time than there is left in the current legislative session. It would never even be completed. So we can either focus on something productive like reversing the damage, or waste our time and effort on an quixotic quest destined for failure before it even starts.

  •  No time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    magurakurin, Big Tex

    There is no way an impeachment of anyone could happen before Bush leaves office.  No time.

    Better.  DO NOTHING until after Jan 20th.  Why?

    Because Bush can't pardon someone for crimes they haven't been charged with!  If they start the impeachment process now, they just muck up the works.

    Instead, wait until after Jan 20th- to charge anyone.  Once Bush/Cheney are out of office, Cheney and Rove become targets big time!  Bush...Cheney has protected him (after all, Cheney was in the Nixon White house and saw what happened, Cheney has always said that protecting Bush from criminal prosecution was paramount and all evidence connected to Bush is long gone).  There will be nothing to "get" Bush on

    •  Re: preemptive pardoms (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      [...] Bush can't pardon someone for crimes they haven't been charged with!

      Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon before he had been charged with a crime.  Jimmy Carter also issued a blanket pardon for draft evaders that included people who hadn't been charged yet.  I don't know if either of these cases of preemptive pardons were challenged in the courts, so if Bush tried to issue preemptive pardons on his way out the door, they could arguably be challenged.  But they have been used successfully in the past, so I don't know that a legal challenge would be successful.

  •  thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, Loose Fur


    ...there is the bottom of the ocean --Talking Heads

    by MsGrin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:53:30 PM PST

  •  And let us not forget (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    the contribution that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd made to this mess.

    Where's my tax cut and why are we still in Iraq?

    by tmaker on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM PST

  •  whatever (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    magurakurin, Big Tex

    i don't care anymore

    if it means fighting instead of solving problems... then I'll take solving problems

    i don't give a flying fuck about anything else right now

    Why so serious? Let's put a smile on that face.

    by AntonBursch on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:01:37 PM PST

  •  Is this our top priority? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Here's a thought I've found myself having sometimes when this has come up for discussion: sometimes "justice" is overrated. Yes, BushCo might get away with murder here - literally. But, especially now that they're on the way out the door, the more time we spend focusing on some sort of retribution the less time we spend actually fixing the damage their depredations have done to our country, and our world.

    In that sense, even if revenge is so very well deserved (and it certainly is), the more we work on that, the more they win. Because any time spent on retribution leaves that much less time to do what needs to be done. Look at it this way. If Obama gets two terms that's 96 months. Spending, say, one of those months on impeachment robs us of about 1% of the time we could be repairing the damage. 1% here, 1% there ... and the opportunity we have been given is gone.

    Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the ordering of the priorities here. But for me, I'd like to see our team focus more on healing the terrible damage of the last eight years, rather than revisiting them. As a progressive, my preference is progress.

  •  Bush is really being very cordial to (0+ / 0-)

    President Elect Obama in the transition, makes you wonder if he's a little afraid of someone actually prosecuting him for all his crimes.

    Let's see now where did I leave my pitchfork and torch?
    You rock buhdy!

    *a hundred years from now, the future may be different because I was important in the life of a child*

    by bonesy on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:12:32 PM PST

  •  It was the right thing to do two years ago (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, Brian B, Nightprowlkitty

    and it's the right thing to do now.  Impeach.

    •  What I don't understand is.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unitary Moonbat

      Who do you think you are talking to when you say "Impeach"? Nancy Pelosi isn't going to impeach. The Senate isn't going to convict. Obama can't. So who are you talking to?

      •  Anyone who will listen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Free Spirit

        Some aspects of my politics I can base on a pragmatic assessment of what's likely to be enacted into law and what isn't, but there are other things that must be done simply because they are the right thing to do.  I know we've allowed the Dems to cave on impeachment ever since Pelosi took it "off the table" after the '06 elections, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing - the legal thing, the moral thing - to do, then or now.  Precedent matters, and I fear we're sending the wrong message to the next would-be autocrat by letting Bush and Cheney walk away (most likely to countries with no US extradition treaty) without at least a token defense of our ancient tradition of respect for the rule of law.

  •  Didn't Clinton give pardons even though he had (0+ / 0-)

    been impeached?

    "But right about now Joe the plumber is meeting with his transition team. They're going to help ease him from obscurity back to oblivion." David Letterman

    by fool me once umm on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:43:43 PM PST

  •  Pardon me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but a presidential pardon would have no standing at the International War Crimes Tribunal.

  •  Impeachment Is Off The Table (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, Free Spirit

    Accountability is off the table

    We must not rock the boat or the Democrats will lose in 2010.

    And in 2010, we must not rock the boat or the Democrats will lose in 2012.

    nancy pelosi's position and she is the head of the house.

    What mama pelosi says stands.

  •  Accountability Is Reserved For Blacks, Latinos, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, Devsd, japangypsy

    and Asians in America.

    That is why America has so many prisons.

  •  It won't be Thanksgiving (0+ / 0-)

    without impeachment on the table.

    Out with the bad Warner, in with the good Warner! The beautiful blue Commonwealth of VA will now be represented by two Democratic senators!

    by big spoiled baby on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:28:58 PM PST

  •  Pelosi sat in on those meetings on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "enhanced interrogation" - and she signed off on them.  She needs to be impeached too.


    by dancewater on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:47:24 PM PST

  •  i know just the guy to do the investigating (0+ / 0-)
    John Sydney Mccain
  •  This never would have happened if Nancy Pelosi .. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, Free Spirit, LaFajita

    was alive....

    Just sayin'.

    "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, every post WWII US President would have been hanged." =Chomsky

    by abenjaminc on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:31:41 PM PST

  •  Ends justify the means. (0+ / 0-)

    The torture, lies to justify the invasion of Iraq, suspension of habeus corpus, domestic spying -- all perpetrated by Bush and his gang based on the Lenin axiom that the ends justify the means.  Put it in the communist lexicon, and maybe we can get people to understand the importance of preemptive impeachment.

  •  What I've been wondering is... (0+ / 0-)

    When Bush and his clan are finished with on 20 Jan 2009, then do they have to hand back in their US Diplomatic passports, and resort to performing all travel to foreign countries using their personal US citizen passport?

    If they no longer have Diplomatic Immunity when traveling to foreign countries, then they could find themselves being subjected to arrest and charges brought against them in the foreign country that they are visiting.

    Is there any chance that this could be a scenario that they face in the future?

  •  God, I thought I wrote the last impeachment diary (5+ / 0-)

    months ago.  Still applies, same folks still lost in outer space. Hello, not gonna happen. Knock, knock, anybody home? Helloooooo? CAN YOU TAKE SOME MEDICATION AND UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN THE MENTION OF IMPEACHMENT NOW MAKES YOU THE EQUIVALENT OF A DELUSIONAL SCHIZOPHRENIC!! gotta get back to the planet earth, by-bye!!

    "Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum away."

    by Travis Bickle on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:42:53 AM PST

    •  It's only a matter of time before the first (0+ / 0-)

      impeach Obama diary.   The day he doesn't keep a promise, or the day he strays back toward the center, there will be an impeach Obama diary.  Mark my words. I am taking April Fool's day in the contest to pick the day of that diary.  

      Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

      by SpamNunn on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:21:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ah, but if they DO get pardoned... (0+ / 0-)

    then nobody gets to plead the 5th.  Healing requires complete openness of exactly what happened entered into the public record.  Punishment, while gratifying to the left isn't the main goal.

    Of course, I see no reason why the criminals shouldn't be indicted.  But if that's not possible, then they lose the ability to hide it.  That is, they could try to lie about it, but everybody in Washington knows that you don't get in trouble for what you did, but for trying to lie about it later on.  

    It's a catch-22 for them, and a win-win for us.

  •  Why Bush won't be impeached... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFajita, Skeptical Bastard

    Here is why Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table: Because she was made aware of the Bush's torture program and tacitly approved, long before it became an issue with the American public. It's not that she's proud of that but it is that her hands are dirty. You can't agitate for impeachment properly without also blaming Pelosi and I know you don't want to create that much of a stir. You don't have the guts for it or the stomach for it. You have to point out that her hands are tied, that she has a vested interest in not pursuing the dark side of the Bush administration: It just points to the fact that she was complicit. That's all.

    She is was and always will be complicit in some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration. Post-9/11 left her sense of ethics weakened by the hysteria of the moment, as with so many others...

  •  and keep his face off the $1 coin as well,,, (0+ / 0-)

    no honors to be bestowed upon him

    O world,no world,but mass of public wrongs,confused and filled with murder and misdeeds

    by Brian B on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:51:43 AM PST

  •  I believe something is being done already, (0+ / 0-)

    it may not have to do with impeachment; but President-elect Obama has had a team working for months on ways to reverse the bushie destructiveness.

    He may not get impeached, but he will not have a lasting legacy either other than being the worst president in history.  I read an article from the WA Post indicating that President-elect Obama's team already has 200 items identified that can be reversed quickly and without congress.

    Leave bushie alone.  It will make us look petty and small.  Let him smirk his way back to Texas only to find that later he has been invited to the Hague.

    He is an asshole.  Let's not spend time giving him any opportunity to garner public sympathy because democrats are being mean to him.

    Impeachment to too small for what he did.  Let's screw him with his pants on when he least expects it.

    "In this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people." President-elect Barack H. Obama, 11/04/08

    by winter outhouse on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:13:05 AM PST

    •  Justice is NOT petty-it is essential (0+ / 0-)

      and a society without justice is not worth having.

      •  Justice is indeed not petty. (0+ / 0-)

        I was implying that it is how it would be percieved.  Why impeach?  Why not let him leave office thinking he got away with something and then give him the REAL justice.  International war crimes. Treason. Torture.  Crimes against humanity. Wiretapping. . .  meet him at the Hague where a Presidential Pardon has NO influence.

        "In this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people." President-elect Barack H. Obama, 11/04/08

        by winter outhouse on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:57:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Impeachment is not justice (0+ / 0-)

        Impeachment and conviction are merely kicking someone out of office.

        Justice of a sorts can be obtained in a court of law provided that the prosecution is not acting out of politically motivated revenge.  Justice is not justice if it is being petty.

        Justice of another sort is making sure that these people will be remembered as assholes, that their policies will be forever reversed, and their ideas are relegated to the dustbin of history.

        Kos told us that he wants to break their spirits.  I tell you how to do that: put all energies to making the Obama administration succeed and to reversing to bad things done during the last eight years.  Success will be the ultimate revenge.

        Earlier this month I voted for the future.  I did not vote for endless recriminations.

        If any criminal prosecutions are to be done against any Bush people it should be at the discretion of career, non-political prosecutors acting in a deliberate manner without pressure from politicians.   Hey recall why we were so upset about Alberto Gonzales?  

        •  I would love a non political procecutor! (0+ / 0-)

          But when all the politicians are PROTECTING each other butts, what can a prosecutor do?
          Can't even make em show up when subpoenaed, provide documents and they get away with it!!

          "Good ole boy, wink, wink, business as usual, sell out every promise" is NOT change.

          NO, if democrats do not support justice for ALL then I am done with supporting Dems.
          You know why we have so many just nasty slimey folks in politics and so few decent people? It is because we let the nasty THRIVE and FEED off the citizens. Make it less attractive for power mad maniacs to go into politics, make them pay the same as any other citizen for criminal acts. There will be fewer nutjobs in power.
          Let them loot and kill and violate rights without any consequences and you will get a bumper crop of even worse assholes.
          Don't you wish Bush had chosen to pursue another career? That Cheney had seen assets seized and sentences handed out and decided to go loot the other side of the planet?

  •  foggy (0+ / 0-)
    Time is moving from the fog of war to the fog of history.  These war criminals are counting on it.  Congress could impeach in a few hours if they had the will.  That is the clear truth.

    The world is calling for justice.

    by jcrit on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:26:30 AM PST

  •  They should be impeached (0+ / 0-)

    but the clock should run on until about the day before inauguration. They should be left in place for their remaining days but with their hands tied.

  •  Obama's election was not a mandate for impeaching (0+ / 0-)

    At least, that's what I'm guessing. It wasn't in any of the exit polls that I saw. Obama never mentioned it in any of his speeches or his commercials. "The day after I'm elected, I'm going use all my newly found political capitol and spend it on impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

    How many more days left until we no longer hear the cry for impeachment?

    This administration needs to be investigated in such a way that prosecutions are a real possibility. Call me naive, but I think this will happen.

    As for pardoning, I don't think it will be a big issue. Any pre-emptive pardons will have all the legal standing of a Monopoly cardboard card that reads "Get out of Jail Free."

    See the losers in the best bars, meet the winners in the dives -Neil Young

    by danoland on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:57:44 AM PST

    •  Pre-emptive pardons can't be repealed. (0+ / 0-)

      If Bush pardons someone, they will forever be out of reach of any sort of judicial action for what they were pardoned for.   There is no repeal or appeal.  The pardon lasts forever.  

      What does not go away is that people can remember what they did and act accordingly.  For example we can bring it up in future campaigns.

      Of course Bush will have state what they are being pardoned for.  For any illegal action that the pardon does not mention can be still prosecuted.  And if Bush really did spell out every single illegal thing his administration did, it will be for all practical purposes an admission which would actually be very beneficial for our side.
      And as I have already said: if there is to be any prosecution of Bush and his cronies, it should not be in any way directed by political people.  This, in a non-corrupt administration, is a matter left to career, non-political prosecutors acting in a deliberate fashion.

  •  Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. (0+ / 0-)

    Let justice be done though the heavens may fall.

    In 2007, there were 2,500,000 Americans imprisoned. If the laws applied to them, then the laws should apply to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Addington, Feith, Yoo, Rice and the rest of the Bush Crime Syndicate.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:16:59 AM PST

  •  Impeachment is a pipedream (0+ / 0-)

    It'll never happen and even if it did it's a long process.  He can pardon a ton of people in the meantime.  Expect a pile of pardons on top of bush's desk either way.

  •  Since there are only about 70 days (0+ / 0-)

    until the inauguration and new Congress are sworn in, there is one little problem about prosecuting the administration or going down the road of investigations:

    Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

    As judicially interpreted, the president's power to grant reprieves and pardons is absolute.  Individual reprieves and pardons cannot be blocked by Congress or the courts. I have no illusions that Bush would use that power before he leaves office, including pardoning himself for any acts while he was president. It's a bit late in the game to do the impeachment thing, but the first hint of something like that would lead him to grant blanket pardons within seconds of that happening.

    You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

    by tazz on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:25:26 AM PST

  •  Put Chimp and others on trial for murder (0+ / 0-)

    Vince Bugliosi outlined the plan.  Now, some DA with guts needs to step up.

  •  Get over it. (0+ / 0-)

    Ain't. Gonna. Happen.  

    Bush will get his pardons like every other president has.. and after the pardons Clinton made, Dems will have no right to bitch.

    Let's move on, shall we?

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:27:07 AM PST

    •  That's a laugh... (0+ / 0-)

      Sure, nobody's a fan of Clinton's worst pardons. But, yes, considering the high crimes the Bush administration has committed -- treason, torture, war profiteering, perversion of justice, on and on and on -- Democrats certainly will have many reasons to bitch. Do you really want to play the Marc Rich/Dick Cheney moral equivalency game? Or argue that the reasons for impeaching Bush and Clinton are of equal weight?

      But I'm just venting against false equivalency; I am deeply disenchanted with Bill Clinton, but he was not, and will never be, the Democratic Dubya. The first three and last five words of your comment are still unimpeachably correct.

      We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

      by Valentine on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:37:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  For better or worse, that's not Obama's plan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Obama has a billion things to do, and he's got to prioritize according to what the American people need most, now and in the future. And he's got to consider the cost of doing something as opposed to its benefit.

    I agree that impeachment would be good for the country. But so would health care, public service, infrastructure and education investment, financial regulation, environmental regulation, sentencing reform, election reform... and so forth. He can't do everything first; hell, he can't even do everything in eight years! And he sure can't lead the charge to send Bushies to jail at the same time as he tries to break Republican filibusters and corral Blue Dogs.

    Of course, government accountability is on that list. When Obama's most urgent priorities are taken care of, I'm sure he'll set some enthusiastic prosecutors on investigating various instances of Bush misrule. But there is no way to get ahead of the pardons -- none at all. So it's the mid-level Bush cronies -- those who don't get pardons and don't have a great deal of influence -- who will pay for the crimes. We don't get Reagan, we get Ollie North. And then Ollie North gets a talk show. That's the stupid way of the stupid world.

    This is unsatisfying, but Obama can't do everything with his first days in office, fresh off a huge victory with tons of public and media support. He's right -- we can bury the Republicans with Obama's fresh successes better than with their old failures. It's not fair, and it doesn't bring closure to Bush's victims, but anyone who thinks the world is fair clearly hasn't been living in my neck of the hemisphere for the past eight years.

    We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

    by Valentine on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:29:47 AM PST

  •  I am skeptical, (0+ / 0-)

    but for what it's worth, I did submit to the need for accountability.  I don't know if that would move the needle on this - again, I am skeptical.  
    But this is a world stage, and the rest of the world (if not most Americans) are aware of the crimes - at least the directing of torture - that this Administration has committed.  
    I fear it is too late, I fear there is not enough of a movement.  Which - in my opinion - means many are asleep still.  They may not like the war, but they do not realize the full implications of what has happened these last 8 years.  

    For our Congress, it means not rocking the proverbial boat.  For our nation, our integrity - the consequences of not rocking that boat are great. But those consequences have been floating around out there for years now.  

    Holy sh*t, we did it.

    by Texanomaly on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:51:51 AM PST

  •  Pardon me... (0+ / 0-)

    It may be somewhere in the comments, but don't you have to be charged with something to be pardoned?

    "Keaton always said 'I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him.' Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares Dick Cheney"

    by Crazyj on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:54:20 AM PST

  •  Bush has already shown how deadly and (0+ / 0-)

    devestating he will be in these last waning weeks of his presidency ... for relaxing enviromental protectionsd to unrainum mining 3 miles from the grand canyon

    Power concedes nothing- F.D. * Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you'll know the exact measure of injustice which willbe imposed upon them.

    by Clytemnestra on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:18:57 AM PST

  •  Listen, Bonehead (0+ / 0-)

    Read your Constitution.

    Impeachment itself doesn't do shit.

    Impeachment is like an indictment.  The Senate must convict based on the evidence from the House's impeachment.  That will never happen with this Senate.

  •  impeachment... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I heard Thom Hartmann speaking on this issue the other day and he made several good points.

    One; that we can probably succeed at getting Henry Waxman and other committee chairmen to investigate and prosecute those people lower down on the totem pole who enabled the crimes to be committed.

    Two: justice will be preserved and they may roll over on people higher up as often happens with RICO prosecutions.

    Three: if those people are in fact convicted they won't turn up, like bad pennies, in the next Republican administration. So many of the people who escaped after Watergate showed up in Bush's bunch and we should learn a lesson.

  •  the best chance we have (0+ / 0-)

    for symbolic victory in this arena is for some very courageous prosecutor to take Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Prosecution of George E. Bush for Murder" and run with it.  The best prosecutor ever published the case for anyone with guts to take up.  It would take the whole thing out of DC and off the back of the Obama administration, right where it belongs -- out there on the ground where we can support it.

    I suggest that if you are serious about bringing all this to account, you lobby state's prosecutors all over the land to use Bugliosi's blueprint and bring the case to court.

    You only have to find one in fifty states.  Only, ha.  One who has the cajones to stand up and do it.  Bugliosi already did the work.

    "When Obama speaks, Angels orgasm" Jon Stewart, 2008

    by fernan47 on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:47:00 AM PST

  •  My biggest concern is that the truth gets out (0+ / 0-)

    and that everyone associated with Bush and his minions/appeasers eventually gets treated roughly in the courts of history.

    I have low expectations for the current crop of Congressional democrats, though, so I'm not holding my breath.

    The thought of actual justice taking place just seems so far removed from the America I've grown used to over the last 24 years or so...

    Corporate Media = Disinfotainment

    by physic on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:53:46 AM PST

  •  The indignity of trying to pardon himself (0+ / 0-)

    Impeachment would be a huge waste of energy now when we have much more important fish to fry (i.e., a first-step stimulus package).

    Bush will likely pardon thousands of people - and I hope he tries to pardon himself (a Constitutional gray zone).  Since we're unlikely to get real prosecution of most of the worms pardoned, anyway, this is not a terrible outcome.  The names of the guilty will be forever enshrined on the pardon list, and cross-referenceable in the event Republicans ever win the presidency again and try to appoint any of them...

    The McCain-Palin Campaign: a transitional medium through which Monty Python skits are transformed into SNL skits

    by Minerva on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:53:51 AM PST

  •  Bush could still pardon everyone pre-conviction (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, ej25, SpamNunn, Vigla

    And I seriously doubt that the impeachment and conviction project could even be finished before January 20.  And even if it is, it will mean that the Senate will be too busy to do important things like confirm Obama's nominees for important posts.  It would take time and energy away from planning a well-thought out agenda.   Meanwhile such a move will make most ordinary Americans including many Democrats that the new Democratic majority is motivated by spite and revenge.  Recall that the voters made the Republicans pay in the mid-term election after the impeachment of President Clinton.  Indeed the loss of House Republican seats was bad enough to force Newt Gingrich to step down.   The move would divide Democrats.  And worst of all, remember that Kos wanted to break their spirits?  Such a move would reenergize the Republican base.  

    In short, any attempt at impeach of Bush will result in nothing at best and setting up our new president for failure at worst.  

    People really should reconsider recommending this diary.  It is ignorant and a knee-jerk piece.   I want reality-based actions.  And I want action to make this country a better place and not to serve the petty revenge needs of any group -- even if I am included in that group.

    You want revenge against the Republicans?  I will tell you what the best revenge will be: A successful Obama administration.  Any actions not geared at helping Americans, blocking neo-con and religious right crap, and helping Obama is simply taking your eyes off the prize.  If Obama's administration ends eight years from now with him being popular, the country being prosperous and at peace, that will break the spirits of those you despise.

  •  The Bush White House (0+ / 0-)

    has a lot to answer for. It's been eight years or pure hell for this country and for others-as well-because of us. The Bush adminstration has plenty to answe for-the sooner the better-and they should not be let off the hook for anything.

    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal

    by lyvwyr101 on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 07:23:52 AM PST

  •  Preemptive war, too? (0+ / 0-)

    How about the domino theory and the theory that if we let gays marry, then people will be marrying animals?

    These people are not important enough to waste our time on.  I was all for impeachment and more for a long time.  Now I am just afraid of what won't get done because of a lack of time.

    We are on the verge of a Depression.  Congress needs to get fiscal stimulus and more in place ASAP.  There is no time for punishment, and there are other ways to deter crime.

  •  Are you fucking kidding me? (0+ / 0-)

    Without going through the third-grader logic, shouldn't it be obvious that an impeached president would simply pardon earlier?

    Our seniors are highly Medicaided.

    by QuailGate on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:03:38 AM PST

  •  If I could agree more, with you................. (0+ / 0-)

    .............I would.

    So suffice it to say, I couldn't agree more with your sentiments.

    My biggest dissappointments with the Democratic Party's refusal to man up to the responcibilities invested in them to protect and defend the Constitution. And they have failed almost as miserably as the Republicans have. In that major portions have been led by the nose to ignore major infractions against our Constitution, Treaties, and laws, with hardly a word of opposition. Even if you cannot win, you have to be seen as upholding what is right and legal.

    Countless people across the world and many American citizens have been deliberately harmed by Bush's administration. I shudder the think of the brave soles who made an attempt to tell what they know about the criminality done in our own governance. Never mind how they have allowed this criminal administration to invade and occupy AND attempt to overthrow Democratically elected governments. The CIA has secretly done much harm to humans in the world, and attempted to ruin our own reputation. Damn them to hellfire and a Congress that sat back and allowed it to happen, with hardly a word..

  •  So let's get Ralphie out there (0+ / 0-)

    to beat the living shit out of Farkus, the kid with the yellow eyes.

    Who didn't cheer when that happened?

    That's what I want. I am sick of the bullies winning, someone has to step in and beat the shit out of them.

    I'll do whatever I have to do to make that happen.

    I felt good today because I fought for the good of my country - My 8-year-old son after his first canvass.

    by the girl on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:38:35 AM PST

  •  the Dems didn't campaign on impeachment, (0+ / 0-)
    like it or not, so they certainly can't and won't pull it out of their hats now after not talking about it during the campaigns, like it or not.

    Dems didn't elect pro-impeachment challengers in our primaries -- those here at dKos who supported impeachment didn't support Jonathan Tasini (candidate challenging Sen. Clinton in the Dem primary for Senate whose thoughtful posts here at dKos for years are mostly ignored) or what's her name who challenged Sen. Feinstein who hardly ever got a mention here.

    Was there even a single NEW pro-impeachment Democrat elected to Congress, or to any high state or national level office? I can't think of one. Kucinich and Wexler got reelected, sure, and perhaps their efforts will continue. Fine.

    p.s.: Sorry, but the fact is: despite the abuses of our legal system and of due process by the most evil Cheney and the idiotic Bush, it is a foundation of our system that nobody is "Guilty. guilty of the most heinous of crimes. Beyond doubt, beyond question" before they have been found guilty, after a trial by jury of their peers, no matter how convinced buhdydharma, me, or anybody else is about the heinousness of their policies and actions.

  •  The healing can't begin until we rip the scab off (0+ / 0-)

    one more time, eh?   Please.

    Get over it.  There will be no impeachments.  

    Roosevelt interned United States citizens in prison camps, and Harry Truman dropped the Big One, twice, on civilians.   A little water boarding, genital mutilation and wire tapping is child's play, compared to that.  No, there will be no impeachments.  

    Obama won.  We control both houses of Congress.  The economy is in the shitter, we have no long term energy plan and a lot of people around the world want us dead.  I would say that Congress has better things to do with its time than punish Turd Blossom, wouldn't you.  

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:18:14 AM PST

  •  Impeachment with a purpose (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    To prevent these crimes from being repeated by future leaders of our country.
    If we are going to say we are better than this then we need to be better for all time, not just when it's convenient.  Impeachment exposes the specifics of the Bush administration's crimes and allows congress to write laws less generalized than something like, "Ahh, just don't do stuff like that, ok?"  
    The days of the wink-wink, nudge-nudge need to be over and Congress needs to stop acting like children and own up to their responsibilities.  The only way to honor the future of this country is to do the honorable thing now.
    Yes, Buhdy, I agree...Impeach Now!!!

    Yes We Can...Yes We Will...Hell Yes We Did!!

    by WSComn on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:37:32 AM PST

  •  Would the author of this diary please update it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with a summary of the cogent legal opionions posted in the comments? I'm very interested in impeacing Bush/Cheney and throwing them in jail for their high crimes against us and the world. Is it actually possible to accomplish that??? and if so, how can we begin a grass roots effort to do so.

    Thank you!

  •  Exec branch shouldn't be able to pardon its own (0+ / 0-)

    This won't happen, b/c it probably would take a constitutional amendment ... but just as the president can't pardon himself, he shouldn't be able to pardon his underlings for actions taken on his watch.

    But pre-emptive impeachment sounds great to me!

    •  A better proposal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If a constitutional amendment is to be used (and I an not sure if it is a good idea)...

      Just say that the President may not give a pardon for anyone from 30 days before election day until either he is officially certified as having won reelection or his successor takes office.  The only exception would be that he could put stays on punishment during that period and would expire if the new president does not issue a pardon.


      That sort of reminds me that there is a far more important lame duck presidential activity: all those new regulations and deregulations issued by executive agencies.  I think that Congress should pass a law that says that any agency can't issue any changes of the regulatory rules from 30 days before election day until the new president is sworn in.    Sure this will diminish Obama's powers briefly four years from now and hopefully eight years from now, but it is the right thing to do.  Congress can do this without any constitutional amendment because all those regulatory agencies were created by congressional legislation in the first place.  Actions that you don't dare do in front of the voters should not be done at all.

  •  Addendum to my post above: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socks, lisastar

    The Patriot Act [talk of Orwellian DOUBLESPEAK!!]: I, a 68 year old 5th generation law abiding American, could actually be arrested and held at Guantanamo for no reason whatsoever, right? You too, right?!

    We need to impeach these people and get our nation back!

  •  Here are a few ideas (0+ / 0-)

    Crimes Against Humanity - Iraq Invasion

    War Crimes - Abu Ghraib prison

    Geneva Conventions - Waterboarding

    Habeas corpus - Guantánamo Bay Detention

    Mix and Match however you please.

  •  Where did Bush buy property that has (0+ / 0-)

    No extradition treaty?  Was it Panama?

  •  Defendants (0+ / 0-)

    George Walker Bush
    Richard Bruce Cheney
    Donald Henry Rumsfeld

  •  Bush's pardons mean nothing. (0+ / 0-)

    Except for Scooter Libby. A pardon is the setting aside of a conviction or punishment. Most of the Bush criminals haven't even been charged yet.

    So, although Ford "pardoned" Nixon...who had not been convicted of anything...we can go after the Bush criminals even if they are "pardoned" by Bush.

    At if we get an attorney general with any balls, we'll see some of these guys pay for their crimes. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

    When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

    by Rayk on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:48:56 AM PST

  •  Impeach! Keep Yelling! (0+ / 0-)

    At the core of the human spirit there is a voice stronger than violence and fear - S. dianna ortiz

    by Rachel Griffiths on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:51:25 AM PST

  •  I would love to (0+ / 0-)

    consider impreachment.

    I was so happy when Kucinich (spelling) read out the articles late into the night on c-span.


    If we started impeachment proceedings, couldn't Bush just start some nasty distraction like full-out attack on Iran, or Russia, or something.

    It could give him marshall law status and then all domestic stuff (including impeachment) would grind to a halt. And he would stay in charge until he saw fit to leave of his own volition.

    Course, all that  I've said could be completely crap, so I invite anyone to assuage my concerns.

    And then lets fry.his.ass.

  •  The Pelosi factor (0+ / 0-)

    You're forgetting that Pelosi is dirty and Bush has promised her that if he goes down, she comes with him. They briefed her on the torture and the spying and a bunch of other things and she didn't say or do anything. And Bush still controls the DOJ until he hands over power, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a gun to her head.

    No, expect full pardons for everyone Bush ever appointed for any and all crimes, real or imagined. Except the disloyal ones who came out for Obama in the last days, they won't get the pardon and will end up taking the fall.

    You heard it here first.

    - Its time we stopped dealing in words, and started Dealing in Lead.

    by walkingshark on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:06:46 AM PST

  •  Four points (0+ / 0-)

    First, impeachment (by the House) must be followed by conviction (by the Senate) for this to do any good.

    Second, this will have to be done both for Bush and for Cheney to do any good.

    Third, presidential pardons can be issued at any moment -- Bush doesn't have to wait until just before the end -- so if impeachment looked likely, he would still have plenty of time to pardon anyone he wanted to, including himself, I suppose.

    Fourth, part of me wants them all to be pardoned so that we can move forward. Man, there's a lot of stuff to get done that (at least in my opinion) is more important than punishing the Bush gang. Even if they were pardoned, the new administration could give journalists/bloggers access to as many raw documents as possible, and let the media publicize the facts. This may actually be more likely to discredit them permanently that tying up Justice & Congress on an investigation of Bush misdeeds. And, if the media finds smoking guns, then at that point the harmed individuals or groups could still sue, the pardon would block only criminal prosecution.

    Greg Shenaut

  •  thank you for bringing this up (0+ / 0-)

    I completely agree that impeachment is called for but some considerations threaten to torpedo such a worthy project:

    1- Time is now very short and a significant percentage of citizens would view impeachment now as victor's justice unworthy of our democracy regardless of the  fairness of the charges. The main benefit of the democratic form of government is that the losing side in a power contest does not suffer at the hands  of the victor and that permits peaceful power changes with each election without the loser fearing a loss of life or liberty. That said it is perfectly reasonable as Obama has said to have an in-depth review by the AG of prosecutable actions such as torture or other violations of criminal law or treaties. I believe President-elect Obama will pursue this course because it will demonstrate the return of the rule of law but also preempt foreign prosecutions of our public officials. Just a reminder a few days ago the British AG announced criminal prosecutions of unnamed CIA officials involved in the torture in Morocco of British nationals. If no swift action is taken this kind of thing could balloon as the Obama administration would start to look like it was ignoring its treaty obligations.

    2- Bush will evade personal exposure to prosecution as long as he can claim that he was misled by underlings and further claim that he was acting to prevent  attacks and to protect the nation. He can offer as evidence that no successful mass attack has happened since 9/11. I know this is not a legalistic defense but it probably is a good political defense. As long as people believe he was misguided in his eagerness to protect the nation rather than criminal they will not accept impeachment so there must be a demonstration of intent by Bush to violate laws and treaties in the selfish pursuit of unitary executive power rather than for the purpose of protecting the nation.

    3- Over the last several months there have been many incontrovertible revelations that Speaker Pelosi and other members of congress were informed ahead of time of the governments intention to use torture in interrogations. This makes them co-conspirators in violations of laws and treaties. Therefore their reluctance to do anything effective to investigate and prosecute or impeach is obvious. Thus we gave castrated hearings where nothing of consequence has resulted to the detriment of our institutions.  It may be important for Congress to reassert itself and at least enforce the subpoenas currently issued but ignored before time runs out on this Congress. Considering the damage her lack of moral courage has wrought on the institution of congress and on the rule of law Pelosi has got to go. Cindy Shehan (sp?) quixotic election challenge cannot be claimed to be  a fair attempt to remove a well funded Pelosi.

    4- There has been some talk of a national reconciliation commission that would look into the Bush years. I say bullshit. But this kind of thing would remove pressure from impeachment and would hide more than reveal and in the end would be an easy out for a lot of compromised politicians.  Additionally, this is a bad idea because it would address by necessity only crimes against americans on american soil since war crimes or the crime of torture are not pardonable under international law and must be prosecutable in any court of universal jurisdiction it would leave the whole process under a cloud and accusations of coverup would follow. Philip Sands has said on more than one occasion that several of our allies' AGs are looking carefully into such prosecutions.

    5- Finally, Cheney as a consummate DC operator knew that to escape direct political retribution he had to implicate the other political party's leadership as co-conspirators and this he did in spades. Rockefeller, Pelosi and several others were fully informed frequently before action was taken and quietly assented in decisions to torture and warrantless wiretap. Unfortunately they are now the immovable obstacle on the unlikely road to impeachment.

    I think you are right to keep up the pressure but I do not have any hope for success because so much of our political class at the top has been thoroughly compromised by design. In any case I don't expect a sociopathic Bush to do a lot of pardoning and, incredibly, a lot of the individuals involved at the senior level think they did nothing wrong. We know, for instance, that Rice was directly involved in designing the torture program and yet I imagine she would rather fight in court than have to carry the red letter of a presidential pardon the rest of her life.

    •  1st There is nothing to hide (0+ / 0-)

      We know the crimes

      2nd God will Impeach the Neo Cons in a very big way.

      3rd There were cracks in the Constitution that need mending.  MEND IT.

      So no more Crack Pots can harm us again.


dwedge, chase, Paolo, Louise, claude, Thumb, Alumbrados, myriad, zzyzx, boydog, vicki, Terri, RedMeatDem, Josh Prophet, Beth, tankej, melo, grollen, ogre, Rayne, raatz, laurak, Trendar, glitterscale, Hornito, rhfactor, Jeff Simpson, Pen, Mountain Don, Snuffleupagus, alisonk, Powered Grace, melvynny, drmonkey, ScientistMom in NY, angrycalifornian, mattman, TocqueDeville, lazbumm, greenbird, Sprinkles, tommurphy, rincewind, Shockwave, jabb, Heimyankel, donna in evanston, tacet, CupaJoe, bramish, meg, Jim in Chicago, Jim W, darrelplant, rightiswrong, Mnemosyne, leftyboy666, Bexley Lane, WI Deadhead, grndrush, mataliandy, givmeliberty, jancw, Heart of the Rockies, JLFinch, Eternal Hope, dpc, eyeswideopen, Gustogirl, NoisyGong, opinionated, concernedamerican, conchita, medaka, jfeichter, Dazy, BlackGriffen, wonkydonkey, annrose, understandinglife, whenwego, undercovercalico, srkp23, ask, peace voter, weirdscenes, Xapulin, PBnJ, fishwars, repeat, edderh, buckhorn okie, roses, chechecule, michelle, JuliaAnn, slatsg, murphsurf, oslo, L0kI, oceanspray, nargel, dqueue, larryrant, juslikagrzly, CodeTalker, jalbert, oceanview, enough already, David Boyle, nonverbalcoma, jted, artebella, sidnora, bejammin075, SensibleShoes, wader, Lilyvt, njgoldfinch, jump23, scorpiorising, dejavu, psnyder, Moody Loner, annan, nancelot, danthrax, TexDem, jsmagid, SlowToAnger, Dallasdoc, apotropaic, brainwave, grannyhelen, alivingston, johanus, Nina, bloomster, cosette, churchylafemme, pdl ithaca, Patricia, On The Bus, Bernadette, defluxion10, betson08, snakelass, rockin in the free world, AbsurdEyes, whyvee, Mrcia, rlharry, Timbuk3, MagentaMN, Green Tea, Pohjola, Anne from Vermont, migo, walkshills, General Disarray, Bendra, stringer bell, AllisonInSeattle, KateCrashes, gmhowell, WisVoter, Man Eegee, KayCeSF, tomjones, JayDean, Wife of Bath, jcrit, Dr Seuss, bablhous, Josiah Bartlett, Timroff, maggie sarah, TekBoss, Limelite, Illissius, TexMex, oortdust, skippythebox, libnewsie, nailbender, greenskeeper, joanneleon, Recovering Southern Baptist, chumley, fijiancat, tovan, mediaprisoner, bloomer 101, marina, radarlady, escapee, deBOraaah, supak, NoMoreLies, DianeNYS, bellevie, UFOH1, m16eib, Five of Diamonds, deepfish, baccaruda, revbludge, socks, Pym, FlowerofScotland, ek hornbeck, Alice Marshall, mjd in florida, indycam, OpherGopher, irate, corvo, KnotIookin, grimjc, clammyc, DocGonzo, truong son traveler, Northstar, Robin7459, Valtin, kamarkamarka, david78209, dj angst, miketocci, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, Bouwerie Boy, eru, Blissing, lennysfo, owlbear1, Pam from Calif, jimstaro, pandawoman, Sara R, jimreyn, GreyHawk, sheddhead, lotlizard, Skid, gerardbellavita, lasky57, jane123, Yamara, Isara, collapse, power model, neroden, wiscmass, FindingMyVoice, Silence is Complicity, Lisa Lockwood, Shaking the Tree, Cory Bantic, playtonjr, Brian B, bookwoman, Lindy, Mr Paul, Flippant, Ekaterin, Arsenic, tigerdog, noladq, mightymouse, dancewater, timba, melvin, ChuckInReno, Asinus Asinum Fricat, xaxnar, CJnyc, coffeeinamrica, Jim P, forbodyandmind, skywriter, RiaD, SoulCatcher, jinok, martini, third Party please, elliott, dus7, make a difference, poco, trashablanca, Sanuk, suz in seattle, MissInformation, Thundergod, Nightprowlkitty, Compound F, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, PatsBard, myboo, rcbowman, Kingsmeg, 417els, Clytemnestra, SantaFeNM, BlueInARedState, Mahanoy, SciFiGuy, frogmarchbush, HoundDog, cookseytalbott, liberalconservative, seefleur, Dvalkure, victoria2dc, kestrel9000, KenBee, compbear, The Wizard, Im with Rosey, cliffradz, dangangry, carolita, sailmaker, Lurky Lu, kck, neecie100, greenearth, SarekOfVulcan, goodasgold, SherriG, NBBooks, DarkestHour, triv33, TalkieToaster, eglantine, StrayCat, need pr, Ashaman, pascal, gooderservice, VegasLiberalStevo, imabluemerkin, Data Pimp, thiebes, Doctor Frog, Caoimhin Laochdha, NearlyNormal, plf515, armadillo, CTLiberal, MarciaJ720, ZombyWoof, gabriella, ER Doc, feduphoosier, Unitary Moonbat, Dinclusin, Juneappal, doinaheckuvanutjob, middleagedhousewife, bonesy, ProgressiVoice, llbear, SingerInTheChoir, Cenobyte, Pete Rock, a small quiet voice, ilyana, jim d, vox humana, CA Nana, rsie, Persiflage, zeke7237, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Dianna, va dare, Lovo, Stripe, Cassiodorus, means are the ends, RantNRaven, Dreaming of Better Days, zorthron, kurt, zedaker, chgobob, bstotts, Friend of the court, 73rd virgin, Temmoku, AllanTBG, markthshark, b3citizen, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, BentLiberal, seabos84, ammasdarling, One Pissed Off Liberal, beaukitty, Acee, J Royce, c0wfunk, FoundingFatherDAR, john07801, Dave the Rave, j1mmyann, nathguy, YoyogiBear, wildNwonderful, lightfoot, jamesmcyang, Buckeye Hamburger, asilomar, donnamarie, willie horton, Green Warrior, SomeStones, SparkleMotion, hockeyrules, Ann Galloway, Loudoun County Dem, AmericasReporter, dmh44, Trim Your Bush, godislove, leftyguitarist, Wide Awake in NJ, Great Uncle Bulgaria, Stwriley, linkage, jds1978, DrWolfy, JeremyA, DvCM, Mary Mike, vista2020, yowsta, chigh, HeartlandLiberal, Ticonderoga, Jimdotz, ezdidit, londubh, Save Ohio Now, twinpeaks, Democrat, bnasley, malharden, Drowning Wave, dolphin777, artisan, ubertar, mauro7inf, quadmom, millwood, Moderation, jayskew, Jack the R, carpunder, rogereaton, RudiB, uciguy30, leonard145b, madgranny, JML9999, eyesoars, Bikemom, kaikeyi, Hens Teeth, oxon, Terra Mystica, BustaVessel, sand805, JDWolverton, GANJA, fayeforcure, rogerdaddy, Spruce, mconvente, Clio2, Westsider, JaxDem, ShadowSD, World Citizen, Chilean Jew, Brandon Friedman, Youffraita, AshesAllFallDown, SmedleyButlerUSMC, Rick Winrod, mikeconwell, monkeybrainpolitics, pkohan, weddedgay, Calamity Jean, Lujane, tofumagoo, left my heart, pickandshovel, bluesheep, Jeff Y, rubine, gildareed, mnguy66, alnep, ShempLugosi, mofembot, Rachel Griffiths, Spekkio, Sameer Dossani, petulans, AJsBodBlog, LaFajita, Jacques, tampamatt, luckylizard, GWboosebag, echatwa, nokkonwud, James Kresnik, aigeanta, omegajew, BYw, less god more good, Tross, A Man Called Gloom, psilocynic, dont think, marketgeek, magicsister, angelino, Scubaval, watercarrier4diogenes, shortgirl, GrouchoKossak, Old Woman, maggiejean, bhagamu, Bule Betawi, Bouldergeist, Rhysling, loftT, number nine dream, hippie bitch, Mr Tentacle, Neon Vincent, Texanomaly, George Hier, WSComn, snackdoodle, normboyd40, Discipline28, don mikulecky, An Affirming Flame, Dopeman, bsmechanic, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, mudgod, Inky99, Nebraskablue, imchange, Partisan Progressive, Patch Adam, panamaniaco, drizek, Matrix Dweller, Daily Activist, Mercuriousss, John Shade, smartheart, michlawa2, redtex, Texas Revolutionary, platypus60, obiterdictum, TheOpinionGuy, ZilV, SteveP, Knight Rider, MooseHB, sricki, kevinpdx, deutschluz, Shelley99, IreGyre, CityLightsLover, scrdchao, maxzj05, Katie71, ArthurPoet, fernan47, LaughingDog, xylem, Sarahsaturn, orangeuglad, Leftcandid, Super Grover, isabvella, sophistry makes me tired, Larsstephens, fatherofdragonwagon, Amber6541, gohmak, BigVegan, appletree, ppl can fly, Wyote, YellerDog, the bipolar bear, BrighidG, oohdoiloveyou, mudmanor, angry liberaltarian, socialgenius1, hope65, You Get What You Deserve, Jampacked, winkster, pyegar, dragonlilleth, NJpeach, Dirk Thrust, pdx kirk, OneOfThoseBitterPeople, Blue Blood, David Harris Gershon, seishin, Firecrawler09, UTvoter, kjoftherock, japangypsy, Hyde Park, TheWesternSun, Crabby Abbey, NYCgrl, wvmom, msmo1918, Nestmaster, JellyBearDemMom, freeport beach PA, xhibi, ATFILLINOIS, BonnieSchlitz, Klick2con10ue, Monkey Man Hermit, Tim Q, Benintn, ThirtyFiveUp, Yasuragi, Jaimas, SoonerG, Black Leather Rain, sluggahjells, itswhatson, Publius2008, Urtica dioica gracilis, Codejack, MsGrin, Fulcrum21, kissmygrits, Floande, Loose Fur, bottles, nosleep4u, jeanma, bicycle Hussein paladin, Vanderath, Onomastic, tuaka1992, ladyducatnip, ankae, the girl, Colorado is the Shiznit, tlouise, ebbet, Sarah Pawlenty, democratinalabama, WineRev, condor95, Mico0109, Tokyo Rose, Jreif, Sad Ham, stone clearing, BlueState Michigan, geffdee, Amayi, raymichael, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, Conquer85, buffalogal55, southernmapper, emmeka, The Narrative, The Son of the Devil Himself, FightingRegistrar, page394, just one victory, greatlyconcerned, TheNextDylan, free as a butterfly, Haf2Read, darwinsfeet

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site