Are you angry that the Democrats are not more aggressive about impeaching Bush & Cheney?

Question

While House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi said that "impreachment is not on the table." Her justification at the time was that it would give Republicans a reason to rally around Bush and Cheney. Recently, as House Leader, she repeated that impeachment is not an option (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070731/cm_thenation/15218930 for details). Should the Democrats reverse this position and go for impeachment? Why or why not?

Bill In Kansas: Is purple the official colour of socialism? Are Nikes the official running shoes of socialism?

_sew_: Even if it would take to the next election to impeach them, why wouldn't it be worth doing? Clinton got impeached for sexual behaviour that didn't hurt anyone other than his wife, assuming that she cared. Bush and Cheney have used the Constitution as toilet paper, taken away civil liberties, and got the U.S. involved in a war resulting in several thousand U.S. deaths and several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths. Shouldn't Bush/Cheney be impeached purely for the principle of the thing?

Coragryph: Would a vote on impeachment give Republicans who are worried about re-election a way to distance themselves from Bush/Cheney and save their own hides by voting in favour of impeachment?

Pfo: for crimes, see the answer by Coragryph, above.

Bildymooner: I think you mean a "moot" point!

Answer 1

I am...they're criminals, and should be treated as such. When we stand by and do nothing, we are giving that much more power to whoever takes office in '09...I don't care what party they're in, nobody turns away power. Through ignorance or misplaced trust we have abdicated our role as watchdog of our government. Our government was founded, "of the people, for the people, by the people." There was no mention or intent ever to give up out role and place our total trust in a handful of men who meet secretly to decide our fate. We have truly become a nation of sheep - and sheep are always led to slaughter.

Answer 2

Whether they SHOULD or not is sort of a moot point. The reason they're not doing it is because it won't work. To remove the president requires a 2/3 vote in the senate, which will not happen (unless Bush screws up WAY worse than he's already done). So the proceedings would just be a waste of time and, I might add, a waste of our taxpayer money.

Which the republicans knew when they impeached Clinton a few years back - but they decided to do it anyway to make their little point. Now they can whine that Clinton didn't do enough about Osama because he was distracted by their impeaching him.

Answer 3

For a president to be impeached he must first to commit a crime, not a Left wing nut or a liberal crime but an actual crime. So Far Bush has not commited any violations of any laws pertaining to the Office of the President of the United States.

Let me ask you, you do alot of Bush Bashing here. Have you ever read an intell report??? Have you ever been in the Military? Have you ever went on a Hunch with the best possible intell you have had on a particular situation? Are you perfect? Didn't Bill Clinton commit prejure? Didn't Bill Clinton bomb Saddam in 98 with the same intell Bush had? Didn't Bill Clinton justify Bush's actions in the begining of the war?Didn't Bill Clinton get his law license ripped away a first for a U.S. President? Isn't it safe to say he got more than a Hummer from Monica? Didn't Bill clinton lie about Whitewater and pardonned his croonies? Hasn't Bill Clinton commited PREJURE? Hasn't Bill Clinton lied about commiting multiple affairs? Didn't Bill and Hilary charge there buddies to sleep in the Lincoln Bedr0om. Have you ever had experience reading Military intell reports?

You say Bush lies about everything, but you justify Clinton's antics all the time are you a liberal Hypocrite? .

Answer 4

No, they shouldn't because it wouldn't accomplish anything.

There is more than enough evidence to make out prima facie cases for violation of federal laws (18 USC 2441, confirmed by the Supreme Court, and 18 USC 1001 or 18 USC 2511, proudly admitted by Bush). Anyone who tries to deny that there is at least a prima facie case is delusional. There may be affirmative defenses (unitary executive, justification, executive privilege) but those defenses would have to be raised a trial, just like any other affirmative defenses. That's the way the law works.

The issue is politics. Even if the House files a Bill of Impeachment, there is no way in this political climate that 2/3 f of the Senate would vote to convict. No matter how much evidence is presented. So, it's waste of time to have a trial when the jury is rigged to acquit.

Answer 5

What fries my bacon is the ridiculous notion that the president should be impeached. The Democrats are not doing it because they do not have grounds. They would lose credibility with sane Democrats if they tried it.

Read the US Constitution. The grounds for impeachment are "high crimes and misdemeanors." There have been no crimes of any kind committed by the President. The Vice President really has no direct control over anything in the Administration. Mr. Cheney has not done anything wrong.

Answer 6

No, because it's not likely to succeed for one, which would only damage the Democratic party, and further ensure that NOTHING useful will get done this session. Also, there's no way they'd ever get Cheney. Getting one and not the other does us no good, because if they impeach President Bush, then we're stuck with President Cheney.

Answer 7

in the beginning, he replaced into the Democrat-IC candidate for President, and he wasn't in undemanding terms a dropping candidate. he replaced into smarter than each Y!A contributor it particularly is published interior the final seventy two hours prepare. his marketing campaign replaced into for the period of the Watergate wreck-ins, usually used to maintain HIM from being elected. the very guy he picked as vice chairman on his fee ticket betrayed him to the traitor Bob Novak. on impeachment: that demands a criminal offense. the Dems in Congress have not dedicated any crimes. they have did not carry the administration to blame, and that's a tragedy, yet not a criminal offense. the President and vp, in spite of the indisputable fact that, have dedicated crimes. they have knowingly and with finished purpose lied to the american public with a view to pursue a reason that would income themselves and their pals. no administration has ever been worse for united states of america of america than the present one, and that they need to be imprisoned.

Answer 8

Impeachment requires a crime, and so far everyone crying for impeachment has not stated a crime to levy against the Bush administration. You need that to proceed. Pelosi knows no crime was committed, and they already waste enough time on Capitol Hill.

Here's a clue: Democrats lied to you, they said they would impeach Bush and Cheney but they lied, they wanted your vote and they used them to get it.

Answer 9

it's probably too late by now though. By the time the proceedings are wrapped up, there will be a new President in the Oval Office before the verdict can be given.

I am sick of all this, "oh aren't we such a happy family between Congress and the White House?". Congress well knows how full of crap that statement is.

Answer 10

They are smart enough to know an impeachment trial would only inspire a 9/11 type event and Bush would use his new directive to eliminate them. They would have to remove Cheny first or it would only get worse as well. They see this as a stalemate where the only outcome is worse than the status quo. And of course they only have opinions to go on, tangible, hard evidence is non existent. Most of what could have been circumstantial evidence has been destroyed.