This is, quite simply, an observation on the ability to impeach. It is not a diatribe on the relative intelligence of certain dailykos members, their ability to reason or lack of ability to reason, and their desire that hyperbole and passion override facts (okay, maybe it is.).
I write this now, based on commentary between myself and some other kossacks. It isn’t important to post a link, nor is it important to mention the other. Why? In part because the replies between us finally devolved to a 36 hour old diary, in which nobody else was posting, and, more to the matter, became such that, when facts not in evidence were pointed out, I was told I was full of shit.
Well, I am full of shit on occasion, and I am the first to admit it. But on matters concerning fact, I wonder if we, as a community, agree.
For example, we, myself included, will use hyperbole. But when called for a fact check, I am certainly willing to do so. Are you? This isn’t an accusation, simply a question. Do you check? I have read many who do, and who admit so.
I don’t tend to throw my opinion around as fact. I know things, many things. I believe many things, also. I believe, for example, that George Bush and Dick Cheney are renegade Knights Templar, set on dominating the world using their treasure and inside information. My belief doesn’t make it so. I don't accuse them of belinging to the controllers of Acre, nor anything associated with it. And, since some of us are literalists, the statements about beliveng Chenery and Bush... were a joke-- a joke!
I know, however, that one plus one equals two. I also know that some does not equal one. I know how to run a google search to find out if students ar plagiarizing, and I know how to run a google search to find out if other kos writers are exaggerating. Simply using one search engine, not recommended or sponsored, we can find out a lot.
Investigation and/or research happens to be one of my passions. Comes from education, training, background, and profession. I recognize that there are a lot of folks here at least as experienced as I am in research.
But research and passionate views often yield contrary results. Grand plans last until they contact reality. Doesn’t mean that grand plans should be avoided, just that those with the plans need to look at reality, also.
For example, if you keep screaming "Impeach!," do you understand that this step, irrespective of merit, simply leads to a trial in the Senate? The House of Representatives cannot remove a sitting president by voting to impeach him or her. The senate must convict before someone impeached is found guilty. For the senate to convict takes 67 votes.
Think about it.
67 votes.
Now, if you believe that there are, or will be, 67 votes to convict, i.e. remove from office, based on any evidence thus presented, I must state that, in my opinion, you are naïve.
There are not 67 votes in the senate to convict AT THIS TIME, on any issue. However, if wrongdoing is found, there can be.
--I know. I will hear the FISA scream. Even the judges on the FISA court aren’t decided about any illegalities. One (not some) judge resigned. His stated reason? That the chief FISA judge did not disseminate information concerning the president's decision. Not that the president was wrong, but that the chief judge was wrong.
That is NOT something to expect impeachment over. Don’t delude yourself. This is fairly normal business in Washington, deciding where powers begin or end. That’s one of the reasons there is a Solicitor General, and one of the reasons for the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court as well.
Are there reasons to impeach? Ask me my belief, or my opinion, and I’ll say yes. Ask me about facts in evidence? No. The facts we are privy to do not allow us to impeach on the idea of either a high crime or a misdemeanor. The House and Senate are not courts of law. They are the legislative branch, made up of elected representatives of states, and districts within states. These members tend to follow the laws set forth, and the rules of their respective houses.
An impeachment empanelling isn’t a grand jury. There must be substantive charges, because the political costs of impeachment, conviction notwithstanding, are high. This is not a case of saying, "The republicans did it to Clinton, let’s do it to them." There was a cost to the republicans. People have longer memories than just two years or four years. Also, this is such a large step that removal of a president AND vice resident can't be taken either lightly, or with weak evidence.
If you want impeachment now, today, for lying, FISA, WMD’s, or just the damned sign ‘mission accomplished,’ you are not going to get it.
Get over it, and learn to be civil. Investigations are underway.
You can BELIEVE anything. Keep clapping, and Tinkerbell will live.
If you WANT impeachment and conviction, support the investigations. Every time there is a refusal to testify, this comes closer and closer to a constitutional issue.
The work is being done. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but this isn’t about you. This is about the constitution, and those who have the power to implement the corrective mechanisms, to wit, impeachment, listed therein.
I want a slow, patient examination and prosecution. Any (decent) prosecutor gathers enough evidence to convict, then enough to ensure the conviction. Since no president has been convicted in an impeachment case, one should be damned careful about expecting a conviction on disputed law.
I have attempted to be fair, just, and as non-confrontational as such a diary can be. I will be around to reply for a few moments, but must go to a wedding tonight.