An Ideal about Impeachment

[Pilar]

I believe President Bush will be impeached and found guilty of a number of high crimes and misdemeanors. But I didn't want to discuss that, as much as I did the issue of what's driving Democrats nuts, and that is the timing of how it will all work out.

You may recall the Current Speaker of the House of Representitives, Nancy Pelosi, a woman (that's significant), announced impeachment was off the table for 2007.

There is a growing discussion in Washington, D.C., that the vice president is also impeachable. This is unusual, becuase normally in the performance of his duties, the vice president doesn't have any power. Because the Democrats don't want a Cheney Presidency, there is an idea to impeach and find guilty the vice president, leaving the president without a vice president and alone in the executive. (Which he technically is, anyway). Then impeach him.

The overall problem with this is that Nancy Pelosi, who would become president should both the pres and vp be removed, is committed to Hilary Clinton becoming the first woman president.

I think a more likely scenario is to wait until 2008, impeach the vp, find a caretaker vice president (someone who's leaving politics and won't run for reelection anyway), elevate HIM to president for a year, then move on.

Any comments?

[Reuben]

i have realtively little interest in machination between the American ruling class - on the other hand if impeachment could damage the credibility that is attached to the OFFICE of the president that is to say, the presidency, this would be good

[Pilar]

Interesting comment about damage, Reuben.

One could, however, easily argue that impeachment would LEND credibility to the system of American government.

Either way, thanks for taking the time to comment on my discussion that you have no interest in my discussion.

;)

[Guerrilla22]

Ok, here's the thing: even if the dems wanted to seek impeachment, it requires a two thirds majority vote in the senate and the dems only have a 5 member advantage over the GOP in the senate.

[Pilar]

A strict party line argument doesn't wash, historically:

Andrew Johnson was hated by his party by the time he was impeached, and his veto was overridden so many times he became an irrelivancy in many ways. He was saved by one vote, so obviously the 2/3 was possible.

Richard Nixon resigned when it was obvious he was going to be impeached (the act itself was bad enough), AND, his own party leadership (Republicans in the majority) told him he couldn't win.

If a bill of impeachment is passed by the House, Republicans in the Senate will know the whole world is watching, AND, they just may do their civic duty and vote guilty, which I believe he is myself.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:12 pm
I think a more likely scenario is to wait until 2008, impeach the vp, find a caretaker vice president (someone who's leaving politics and won't run for reelection anyway), elevate HIM to president for a year, then move on.

Any comments?
It seems somewhat implausible to be honest. When Pelosi said impeachment was off the table in 2007 I really got the impression she was saying that impeachment is off the table indefinitely, not merely postponed for a year. I really don't see much political will among Democrats, especially after their congressional victory, to go after Bush. I may be wrong though, who knows.

The real question is what would impeachment accomplish? At this point Bush is almost on his way out and hes lost a lot of "political capital". More importantly, what kind of real political changes would come of this? One definite positive is that it might energize the public to go after political leaders. On the other hand I cant really see any of the Democratic hopefuls or many politicians proposing a political agenda that would actually involve withdrawal from Iraq and a total reversal of imperialist American foreign policy nor meaningful economic changes. Thats because I think the American political system isnt defined by particular individuals like Bush or Cheney, it has structuralist pressures resulting from America's economic structure that create the foreign policy that we have, that create the economic system, etc. So while there might be a plus side to it, the effort it would involve and the meager political gains it would engender seem to be unbalanced, its not really worth it. As you know, most of the people on here run the gamut from socialists to anarchists so our beef isnt simply with poor leadership or what have you but with the actual economic system we live in and I dont really see impeachment as making particular gains towards creating the type of society we want.

[Pilar]

BreadBros,

You are absolutly correct, in my opinion, that the subject I raise has little or no effect upon the issue of socialism. It was a political question on its own merrit. Such a process can yield gains for the American political system within its construct, but that's about all it can do.

There will be no economic changes from a Bush versus H. Clinton versus Obama versus McCain presidency. As you allude to, BreadBros, there is no systemic change by choosing a new president.

I mentioned earlier that it is very possible that impeachment will strenghthen the United States internally, and its view of itself.

There can be an entire discussion on the matter of whether political achievements of the USA are advances or steps backward for the socialist movement. Or, perhaps, they are of no matter.

Though I have to disagree with you on the matter of this not blossoming into an impeachment. i wasn't alive, but the history books tell me Nixon's downfall began as a third rate burglary.

[BreadBros]

There can be an entire discussion on the matter of whether political achievements of the USA are advances or steps backward for the socialist movement. Or, perhaps, they are of no matter.

True. I think they are important, they obviously have an effect on a large swath of people. However, the question of how the government and political process relates to the average person is somewhat different.


I mentioned earlier that it is very possible that impeachment will strenghthen the United States internally, and its view of itself.

Well in the short term it could have the effect of saying "Well, bourgeois democracy DOES work, because look, we got this bum out!" which may strengthen the hold of electoral politics on people's consciousness. However if what we're saying about the problems in the world lying in structure rather than bad leadership and what not, then in the long term people would also recognize that "Hey, we got that bum out and nothing changed, so maybe theres something else that needs to be changed". Of course, thats all speculative at this point so we'll just have to wait and see.


Though I have to disagree with you on the matter of this not blossoming into an impeachment. i wasn't alive, but the history books tell me Nixon's downfall began as a third rate burglary.

Also true, but I think this relates to that little bit I just typed above^. During the Nixon age it appears to me (I wasnt alive either) that "enfranchisement" was still a much more viable concept. While large swaths of the populace (minorities, immigrants, etc) have always lacked a political voice, those that did vote did have a degree of effect on government policy, which produced a large degree of involvement by the public in electoral matters. Today that enfranchisement seems somewhat gone. Political platforms are overwhelmingly dictated today by think thanks, which in turn exist to serve lobbyists, corporations, etc. Even then theres the question of whether certain reforms (particularly economic) are even possible in light of all of the IMF, World Bank etc. regulations states are now subject to. This lack of having a real effect has translated into a change in politics. For most Americans politics today is far more of a spectator sport followed on CNN than something individuals actually get involved in. I totally see what you're saying, but I also think times have changed quite a bit. For example, opposition to the war in Iraq could be said to be at the same level as opposition to the war in Vietnam. Yet in the Vietnam-period that resulted in some actual anti-war politicians coming into the mainstream. Today any anti-war voices are voices in the wilderness, with little of the financial backing and what not thats necessary to get anywhere in DC. Then again other factors enter into the calculation, for one a massive draft effecting the public isnt there as it was before. The only truism at this point in relation to impeachment or not is that regardless of what happens we have to stick to our guns and keep pointing out our critical analysis of society as well as participating in mass struggles that people choose to engage in.

[( R )evolution]

As BreadBros stated, even if we are able to impeach Bush would it really make a difference within the white house itself? No. America's political structure is not that much dependent upon the individual itself (i.e Bush, Cheny, Obama, Clinton, doesn't matter who) but rather it is run by the ruling class. It does not matter who is in office, but rather the economic interest of the ruling class. Would the impeachment of Bush be a political victory saying we dont like the way things are going? Yeah probally but who ever replaces him and the person who replaces that person in 1 years or 5 years down the line it wont matter because the worker will always be oppressed and the government will always run things in the interest of the ruling class.

[Kia]

I highly doubt they'll ever impeach bush or even get very far in trying to. Bush and the administration still have enough power in the senate and house that impeachment is almost impossible. Due to this bipartisan nonsense that plagues American politics (well just adds to the already plague infested monster it is) the right is highly unlikely to vote against their own president just because they'd rather not do something the democrats would like.
I'm sure there is enough evidence out there to impeach him but the bush administration is rather skilled at reducing the amount of damage they suffer from scandals. Look at all the scandals and problems that have arisen during his terms and you'll realize that even if it lowers their popularity it doesn't do enough to get them ousted. The republicans were able to get rid of Clinton with just one single scandal..pretty impressive really.
Impeaching Bush really isn't beneficial either. It would put Cheney in power, and personally if I had a choice between the two (and only the two) I'd rather have Bush. If they somehow impeached both Cheney and Bush and Nancy Pelosi took power..I don't think much would change really other then the push for the removal of troops from Iraq would become stronger.


If a bill of impeachment is passed by the House, Republicans in the Senate will know the whole world is watching, AND, they just may do their civic duty and vote guilty, which I believe he is myself.
Interesting thought. Frankly if somehow magically they were able to get the impeachment that far..I doubt they would vote to impeach him. America has THE WORST views on foreign policy out there. The USA today has barely any care about what other countries think of them. America would rather keep a person in power they know is wrong then admit to being idiots. The day the USA openly admits to making a mistake with Iraq is about as likely as everyone on this board turning into fascists.


While I agree with most members on this board that participating in the US political system will serve almost no help to advancing leftists politics forward..I do think we should at least pay close attention to what is happening. The American government still has great power over its people and in the international community. Keeping a close eye on the government allows us to carefully choose our tactics and provides us with useful information into the current political thought of the upper and middle classes (even a large chunk of the lower classes too).


The next election could be an interesting turning point in US history...maybe they'll elect another Bush or worse...maybe it'll just swing back slightly left and nothing really will have changed..or we'll get someone who has enough power to really put forth progressive politics (highly highly unlikely) (and yes it would be reformist changes...but some areas of politics need those changes now rather then later).

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:11 pm
A strict party line argument doesn't wash, historically:

Andrew Johnson was hated by his party by the time he was impeached, and his veto was overridden so many times he became an irrelivancy in many ways. He was saved by one vote, so obviously the 2/3 was possible.

Richard Nixon resigned when it was obvious he was going to be impeached (the act itself was bad enough), AND, his own party leadership (Republicans in the majority) told him he couldn't win.

If a bill of impeachment is passed by the House, Republicans in the Senate will know the whole world is watching, AND, they just may do their civic duty and vote guilty, which I believe he is myself.
No, however even if the vote didn't happen along a straight party line (Every democrat voted against Clinton's impeachment) there is no possible way they'll come up with the 2/3 vote, be realisitc.

[Pilar]

BreadBros and Kia,

Thank you for the very good analyses. I enjoyed reading them.


The following was taken from the CBS News website. It was a commentary from a writer for the Nation:




Scarborough drew the two statements together for the purpose of asking whether Bush could count on Republicans to block moves by Congressional Democrats to hold Bush to account for high crimes and misdemeanors.

When a conservative commentator who was on the frontlines of Newt Gingrich's "Republican revolution" entertains a thoughtful conversation about the politics and processes of impeachment on a major cable news network, it should be clear that the cloistered conversation about sanctioning this president has begun to open up.

No, Scarborough is not jumping on the impeachment bandwagon.

He is simply treating the prospect seriously, as did CNN's Wolf Blitzer earlier in the day.

What I told Scarborough is what I have been saying in public forums for the past several weeks: We are nearing an impeachment moment. The Alberto Gonzales scandal, the under-covered but very real controversy involving abuses of the Patriot Act and the president's increasingly belligerent refusals to treat Congress as a co-equal branch of government are putting the discussion of presidential accountability onto the table from which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to remove it.

Does this mean Bush and Cheney will be impeached? That, of course, will be decided by the people. Impeachment at its best is always an organic process; it needs popular support or it fizzles — as with the attempt by House Republican leaders to remove former President Clinton in a process that, fairly or not, seemed to be all about blue dresses.

While the people saved Clinton — by signaling to their representatives that they opposed sanctioning a president's personal morals — it does not appear that they are inclined to protect Bush.

With each new revelation about what Gonzales did at the behest of the Bush White House to politicize prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys, the revulsion with the way this president has disregarded the Constitution and the rule of law becomes more intense. And citizens are not cutting their president much slack.

A new USA Today/Gallup Poll — conducted over the weekend — shows that, by close to a 3-to-1 margin, Americans want Congress to issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify in the Gonzales case. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed say the president should drop his claim of executive privilege in this matter, while only 26 percent agree with the reasoning Bush has used to try and block a meaningful inquiry.

If the president wants to get in a fight with Congress over how to read the Constitution, it appears that the people will back Congress. And that backing is what will begin to restore the backbones of House members who, despite Pelosi's attempts to quiet talk of impeachment, are getting more and more intrigued by the prospect of holding this president to account.

As Hagel says, "This is not a monarchy. There are ways to deal with (executive excess). And I would hope the president understands that."

If Bush doesn't recognize this reality now, he soon will.




I think the writer understands what I have implied: Regardless of what any party interests are, this thing can snowball and more people will jump on the bandwaggon.

[Pawn Power]

I recently heard Dave Lindorff, author of The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.

He was quite adement on getting Bush impeached even if he doesn't have much time left in office.

One of the main reasons is Bush's practice of "signing statement" which allows him to accept a bill from congress but sign off certain aspects of it or all of it without vetoing it. He has done this hundreds of times (never publicly vetoing a bill) which has given him power to do what ever he wants regardless of congress. This is all down under the threat of national security of course. He argues that this practice cannot be stoped, because he will simply sign off such a bill to stop him even if congress has 2/3 to over ride a veto (because remeber he does not need to veto the bill but can openly endourse and then sign off any aspects he doesn't like). This can only be stoped if he is impeached. Lindorff argues that this dictator-like practice of "signing statments" could carry on to future offices if Bush is not impeached now.

While I would be pleased to see Bush impeached I do not think it will change a great deal. A lot of the support seems to be coming from those who think that the US government can be salvaged or has some benificial qualities. A much deeper change will need to occure to stop such rulling class authroity.

[Guerrilla22]

Impeachmnet would be pointless, I'm not sure why some organizations, such as the World Can't Wait are pursuing it. These people obviously are oblivious to how the US government works. If the pres. is impeached, the Vice President then becomes president. Impeachment does not mean the president's entire administration is removed.

[Pilar]

Guerrilla22

I've spoken on the phone to World Can't Wait people. AT FIRST (In 2003) they didn't use impeachment at all, but wrote about "forcing out the Bush Regime". I asked them what they meant, and they had no reasonable answer. Both reps I spoke to just *****ed about him and said he endorsed torture and an end to habius corpus. I told them Congress also voted for this, and shouldn't their website be anti-109th Congress. They didn't have an answer.

To date, WCW has only addressed Bush, and not the previous Congress that passed all of the laws, sending it to the president's desk for signing.

This is because their interests are in replacing the American style presidency with one like the UK, where the executive can be removed by a vote of no confidence.

WCW people haven't a clue as to how the U.S. Govt operates.


Pawn Power

Lindorff and I have exchanged emails. The problem with his obsession over signing statements is that it's not unconstitutional to attach the phone book or a coloring book to the president's signature upon presentment of a bill that has passed both houses.

If Bush attaches a statement, "The Executive will inerpret the color YELLOW to mean the color GREEN, big deal. That's niether unconstitutional or illegal. The violation occurs WHEN president Bush uses the executive to cause harm to a party, or enforces the law wrongfully, BASED ON USING GREEN AS THE CRITERION, WHEN YELLOW WAS CALLED FOR. That's the crime.

Lindorff disagrees with me. But I think I know more about how the Supreme Court operates than he does.

[Janus]

If the pres. is impeached, the Vice President then becomes president.
Having Cheney as president certainly doesn't look like a better option and it definitely wouldn't improve things at all. Impeachment would be a very empty victory even if somehow successful in that no reversal of policies, administration, or structure can be achieved by it.

[Pilar]

Janus,

This is why the mainstream American left (let's accept that we, the Revolutionary left, are not that) has discussed impeaching Cheney first, and placing an acceptable caretaker VP in his place, preparing for a Bush impeachment.

Niether would serve socialist interests, but it makes good theatre. And it's interesting from the point of view of whether such an event would weaken or strengthen the United States.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:46 pm

If the pres. is impeached, the Vice President then becomes president.
Having Cheney as president certainly doesn't look like a better option and it definitely wouldn't improve things at all. Impeachment would be a very empty victory even if somehow successful in that no reversal of policies, administration, or structure can be achieved by it.
Again going back to Lindorff, who if much more aware of party relations then i am, cliams that "when" Bush is impeached (he always says "when" not "if") that Cheney will be correspondingly indited by the Republican party. So it will impeachment for him will not be needed. The Republicans can simply take him before he is president. Lindroff's argument is that they simply don't like him and that it will hurt them in the ensuing presidental elections. Nobody would possibly vote for such a man. So the Republican Majority Leader will then become president, which they think would have a better chance of being reelected or would not hurt the parties image as much.

Again, most of this is not important for radical change, or any real change for that matter. Bourgeois politics are booring but they are often pushed onto you. :o I guess its useful to know to argue with librals.

[Pilar]

Again going back to Lindorff, who if much more aware of party relations then i am, cliams that "when" Bush is impeached (he always says "when" not "if") that Cheney will be correspondingly indited by the Republican party. So it will impeachment for him will not be needed. The Republicans can simply take him before he is president. Lindroff's argument is that they simply don't like him and that it will hurt them in the ensuing presidental elections. Nobody would possibly vote for such a man. So the Republican Majority Leader will then become president, which they think would have a better chance of being reelected or would not hurt the parties image as much.

This is an amazingly stupid statement (whoever said it) in that it is 100% WRONG.

No power on earth, save impeachment can remove the vice president from office. Further, regardless of what 100% of the Republican party, the House or the Senate, or 100% of the American people say or want, the literal moment the president is no longer president, the vice president is president. PERIOD.

Who comes up with this bullshit: the Republican party can prevent him from being president. The Constitution was written before parties existed. It doesn't mention them.

The vice president can be indicted for a crime, but can only be removed from office by impeachment.

Weird.

[Guerrilla22]

Again going back to Lindorff, who if much more aware of party relations then i am, cliams that "when" Bush is impeached (he always says "when" not "if") that Cheney will be correspondingly indited by the Republican party. So it will impeachment for him will not be needed. The Republicans can simply take him before he is president.

Then Lindorff, who ever that is, is clearly detatched from reality and clueless as how the US constitution works.

[praxis1966]

Seems to me the problem really is that the Nixon impeachment is analagous. Remember that Congress first went after VP Agnew and he resigned. In this sort of a situation, it's up to the sitting president to nominate a new VP, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

While this might not seem like a big deal (the Dems do technically hold a slight majority), the Republicans still control the Senate, for all intents and purposes. Though Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats, he almost always votes with the Republicans. Further, the Democrats still have another of their number (South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson) in absentia recovering from a stroke and unable to perform his duties. This entire line of thought is really mute, however, when one considers that most confirmation votes are generally near unanimous no matter how controversial the candidate.

Basically, the practical implication is that if and when Cheney and Bush are removed from office, we'll probably still end up with with another fucknut right-winger (think Gerald Ford, the only US President never to be elected President or Vice-President).

[Pilar]

praxis1966:

You almost have it right. It isn't the Senate alone, but both Houses:


Amendment XXV, Section 2:
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.


It would be a caretaker vice president who would serve as a caretaker president. Someone who would have no intention of running for president. It would be a moderate Republican LIKE Gerald Ford. He certainly was right of center, but not by any means a right wing hard liner by American standards, and, naturally, he became more centerist after being president.

[praxis1966]

Well, that was my bad on the actual nomination process for replacing a VP. It's been years since my last constitutional law class.

As far as Ford being centrist, well, I'm not so sure, but that's not really what this discussion is about. I think the essence of the point I was attempting to make is still valid.

[Pilar]

Yeah, Praxis,

You and I disagree on this point. You believe it will be a right wing nut job, and I believe the Democraticly controlled Houses of Congress will only let it be a center of the road Republican who will be no more than a caretaker until January, 2009.

By socialist standards he will be to the far right; by American standards he will be middle of the road.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:11 am

Again going back to Lindorff, who if much more aware of party relations then i am, cliams that "when" Bush is impeached (he always says "when" not "if") that Cheney will be correspondingly indited by the Republican party. So it will impeachment for him will not be needed. The Republicans can simply take him before he is president. Lindroff's argument is that they simply don't like him and that it will hurt them in the ensuing presidental elections. Nobody would possibly vote for such a man. So the Republican Majority Leader will then become president, which they think would have a better chance of being reelected or would not hurt the parties image as much.

This is an amazingly stupid statement (whoever said it) in that it is 100% WRONG.

No power on earth, save impeachment can remove the vice president from office. Further, regardless of what 100% of the Republican party, the House or the Senate, or 100% of the American people say or want, the literal moment the president is no longer president, the vice president is president. PERIOD.

Who comes up with this bullshit: the Republican party can prevent him from being president. The Constitution was written before parties existed. It doesn't mention them.

The vice president can be indicted for a crime, but can only be removed from office by impeachment.

Weird.
I got that wrong.

What this guy was saying was the Cheney would resign following the impeachment of Bush (before Bush is actually removed from office) because of pressure from the Republican party. For the party's intrests I mentioned before and the threat of a subsequent impeachment.

He was quite sure this resignation would happen drawing the parellel to the resignation of Spiro Agnew. Saying that if anyone is less popular within and outside of their party and more guilty of a slew of crimes (Halliburton) it is Cheney. Cheney's hands are probably in deeper and darker shit that Bush's.

[Pilar]

Pawn Power:

Here are my views on what you raised:

I do not believe it would happen that way, because should Cheney resign and leave the executive without a VP, the moment Bush was voted guillty the presidency would be IMMEDIATELY offered to Speaker of the House Pelosi. The Democratic party would NOT want this for two reasons:

1. It would "rob" Hillary Clinton from being the first woman president;

2. It would effectively end Pelosi's equally significant first woman Speaker role;'

On a side note it might end her career, as it's difficult to psychologically do anything after serving as president.


The problem with Cheney's "crimes" is that it is not a crime to advise the president of anything. Our vice president has no real power. His responsibilities have grown however, and he serves on the NSC. Should he be found to have divulged the identity of one of our spies (many believe he did), that's of course an impeachable offense. But being a neo-con and planning to reshape the Middle East is not a crime. It's just making circles in the sky.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:12 pm
I believe President Bush will be impeached and found guilty of a number of high crimes and misdemeanors. But I didn't want to discuss that, as much as I did the issue of what's driving Democrats nuts, and that is the timing of how it will all work out.

You may recall the Current Speaker of the House of Representitives, Nancy Pelosi, a woman (that's significant), announced impeachment was off the table for 2007.

There is a growing discussion in Washington, D.C., that the vice president is also impeachable. This is unusual, becuase normally in the performance of his duties, the vice president doesn't have any power. Because the Democrats don't want a Cheney Presidency, there is an idea to impeach and find guilty the vice president, leaving the president without a vice president and alone in the executive. (Which he technically is, anyway). Then impeach him.

The overall problem with this is that Nancy Pelosi, who would become president should both the pres and vp be removed, is committed to Hilary Clinton becoming the first woman president.

I think a more likely scenario is to wait until 2008, impeach the vp, find a caretaker vice president (someone who's leaving politics and won't run for reelection anyway), elevate HIM to president for a year, then move on.

Any comments?
Get rid of Cheney first. He is the Palpatine to Bush's Darth Vader. Fuck impeachment though, I want to see Bush and Cheney and Condi and Rumsfeld and all the others' hang on youtube right next to Saddam. They deserve it just as much.

[Pilar]

AndrewG,

Which authority do you believe would perform the deed?

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:45 pm
AndrewG,

Which authority do you believe would perform the deed?
Us hopefully, after a successful revolution. Not a lynch mob, mind you, but a trial. Of course, it won’t be much of one, since he doesn’t have much of a case. The Dems don’t want Bush impeached because they care more about winning the favor of the people. They will let the GOP do their damage until the people run to the Dems to save them.

[Pilar]

AndrewG:

Oh, you mean post-revolutionary American trials. Got it now.