Dismantling the arguments against impeachment
conyers’ lame-ass excuses
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
rahm emanuel’s lame-ass excuses
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
lawyers’ letter to lahy, conyers
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
patrick henry’s speech
http://www.historyplace.com/sp…
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?
Wow. I guess we’re back on impeachment.
Okay by me.
Sounds like we’re in for a rehash of the impeachment wars of December 2006.
There are four primary arguments used by those who oppose the impeachment of Dick Cheney and George Bush, and we’ve all heard them before: it’s too politically risky. (Put this one last). Show the results after the 1974 impeachment process, contrast that with post-Clinton impeachment, which was a farce of an impeachment.
It will take too long.
Democrats will be seen as partisan, vindictive, and or vengeful. This is actually a subset of the quote “politically risky” argument.
We don’t have the votes.
Include Pelosi’s quotes about it not being worth it.
cite the January 1974 poll that showed that 51% of Americans opposed the impeachment of Nixon; contrast that with recent polls regarding potential impeachments of Bush and or Cheney.
It will diminish the effectiveness and value of impeachment. This is an argument that is ridiculous on its face. Compare the process that led to the near impeachment of Richard Nixon to that of the process that actually led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
A recurring theme. I would like to believe that thinking Democrats have not fallen victim to the belief that the Clinton impeachment set the standard for impeachments. I rather would like to believe that the Clinton impeachment brought into stark relief the difference between a farcical impeachment and a serious one, the serious one, of course, being that of Richard Nixon. Here’s how serious the Nixon impeachment was: Nixon resigned from office rather than be impeached, because he knew that the case against him was solid, and he would go down in defeat, dragging the Republican Party with him. Clinton, on the other hand, knew that the case against him was a joke.
Any potential impeachment of George Bush or Dick Cheney, once the investigations and hearings have run their course (provided, of course, that they are substantive), will place current day Republicans in the same quandary: they will be faced with a choice between standing side by side with a president and vice president who will have been demonstrated to have been thoroughly corrupt and criminal – an act of political self immolation – or facing the music, and choosing to preserve not only their own political hides, but the future existence of the Republican Party. If any reader of this site to has any doubts that substantive hearings would reveal wrongdoing on a scope heretofore unprecedented in American history, then I do not know what to say to them. Further, if any reader of the site believes that revelation of such wrongdoing, and solid, bulletproof documentation of such wrongdoing, will not prove politically fatal to Republicans, then I also do not know what to say to them.
Dean will get done during the time of impeachment. Check the arguments that Dean used.
Arguments against impeachment: some have even argued (Armando) that resorting to impeachment will weaken the relative standing in Congress to check abuses of the executive branch. The power of future congresses to check the abuses of the executive branch.
I completely disagree. Like John Conyers in his 1974 essay, “Why Nixon Should Have Been Impeached,” I would argue that failure to impeach weakens the power of the legislative branch, for the very reason that Kagro alludes to: as long as the executive branch knows that the legislative branch is not willing to use its own mechanisms of enforcement, the executive branch knows it can act with utter disregard of the legislative – a fact that has been thoroughly borne out over the course of the 110th Congress so far.
ONE YEAR ON:
kos, December 7, 2006:
We can spend 2007 either pushing impeachment (which isn’t as popular as Zogby claims, see Bowers’ piece), or we can use it educating the American people about what a Democratic government would look like — passing meaningful legislation that would improve their lives like the minimum wage, health care reform, ethics reform, stem cell research funding, policies that help families and the middle class.
Impeachment does none of that.
- and neither, as it turns out, does a Democratic Congress.
More:
Don’t worry about Bush and company. Congress will pursue its oversight duties. Waxman and Slaughter and Conyers and the rest of those guys aren’t about to take the next two years off. People will be held accountable. Impeachment isn’t the [only] path to accountability.
- except, as we no know, the administration has defied their subpoenas and obstructed their investigations. Now what?
Kagro X, within days of being handed his new responsibilities as a front-pager at DailyKos, circumspectly answered the question, “But what can Congress do when the executive branch defies congressional subpoenas, and the administration’s Justice Department refuses to enforce them?”
So if you’re conducting oversight of, say, the NSA spying program, and you want answers from Gonzales regarding the program’s legality, and you subpoena him and he tells you to take a flying leap, what do you do?
You could try going to court, but not only will that pretty much run out the clock, but the courts are quite likely to tell you, “What are you crying to us for? You have your remedy. If you’re too chicken to use it, that’s your problem.”
Kagro goes on,
Instead, it’s about contemplating the place of impeachment as a procedural tool. Just as it’s the threat of a filibuster that ultimately provides the “power” that makes the “Senatorial hold” possible, so is impeachment the power that makes Congressional subpoena power possible for use against the executive branch.
And whereas the Democratic Congress has demonstrated its willingness to cave in the face of mere threats of obstruction by Republicans, the Republicans on the other hand have shown that they will stop at nothing – the so-called “cataclysmic fight to the death” promised shortly after the November 2006 elections – to keep Democratic initiatives from moving forward. This Democratic Congress, truly, is left with only one option, an option clearly spelled out in the Constitution: impeachment.
of course, the one argument against impeachment but I cannot successfully fight is the unstated argument. Some have suggested that Republicans might be holding compromising information certain if not most Democratic congress members.
I saw my first impeach yard sign today. It was very heartening.
The same mindset that would justify immunity for the telcos in FISA would justify forgoing impeachment: perpetrators of crime should not be held accountable for their crimes.
test