Impeachment: If Weather and Polls Are Favorable

Looks like impeachment might be on the table if . . .

Note: The comments below are expanded at this link: [ Click ]

* * *

while his committee and the Democrats would hold numerous hearings on Bush's policies (from the war to corruption and attacks on civil liberties), he regards introducing articles of impeachment as off agenda when Congress returns in January. Conyers urged the people present to help Congress expose the truth about Bush, and said that in order for impeachment to be successful it must have broader public support and bipartisanship in Congress. Ref

* * *

Recap

Impeachment might be on the table-agenda if:

A. It is not January;

B. The public mobilizes support for action, which we did for the 2006 election

* * *

Note the distinction: Impeachment is not being referred to in reference to a "table" but an "agenda."

___ What if the agenda is on the table?

___ Does it matter what is or is not on the table if the Congressional agenda is the only relevant issue?

* * *

Note "impeachment" is not being looked at in terms of what the House will or will not do, but as a broader issue of "success".

___ How can "successful impeachment" be defined in terms of what the voters or public do or do not want?

___ Is "successful impeachment" defined in terms of whether the President is or is not convicted?

* * *

Overall Comments

Impeachment is a single action by the House, unrelated to the Senate conviction. Even if the Senate refuses to convict, the House could multiply impeach the President. Popular support is not a requirement, but may expand as more evidence surfaces with subsequent impeachments against other non-White House personnel.

Impeachment is not a one-off against POTUS.

___ Why are We the People, the ones who voted for Representatives, being asked to support the work of those who have been sent to do the work?

___ Isn't it the goal of the Congress to be a Republican form of government -- representing We the People?

___ Why is "success" being vaguely defined without specifying what success means: Does it mean "good evidence warranting public support for the charges"; or does it mean that "success" is "enough evidence that would make the GOP, if they refuse to convict, really sorry in 2008"?

I don't might offering support, but it appears the DNC has the notion of Republican form of government upside down: You're elected to do our work; if the "outcomes" of Government depend on whether the public is or is not doing the work of Congress, why do we need anyone in the US government?

* * *

Impeachment should not be narrowly defined in terms of what is or is not "successful": Impeachment is a charge of a crime. The success is whether the Congress does or does not fully do its work without having to be told, prodded, and reminded of their duty.

___ What if the GOP refuses to agree that they have committed crimes; does this mean Congress won't charge people for crimes, despite the evidence?

I see little evidence the NeoCons are going to agree to anything resembling accountability; any argument that "bipartisanship" is required puts the enforcement of the Constitution in the hands of those who violated the law. Kind of like asking Saddam whether he agrees with the verdict -- this isn't justice or a credible protection of the Constitution, but deferring oversight to the consent of the lawless mob.

We need leadership not DNC excuses to delegate their work to We the People. On or off the table, the agenda is the Constitution.

Do your job.

* * *

Suggestions

Be clear with the type of support you are looking for.

Do you want We the People to monitor the transcripts and forward our ideas, questions, and information showing that the witnesses have committed perjury; or are rewriting history?

[ Continued: Click here to read more ]