« Changing the Rules | Main | AGAG's Just Given Cheney the Keys to the DOJ Kingdom »

July 24, 2007


fair enough, but what if the censure vote fails, say 70-30, or worse as happened during Russ' previous resolution? Then the courts could argue that the issue was raised legislatively and deemed not to conflict with existing law.

I think the continuing investigations, backed by enforced subpoena power, is the most effective method. Once the evidence of wrong doing is fully documented then the deal is sealed.

If censure comes for a vote, I fear that it will not have sufficient time and scope to make a good case.

I don't think censure moves to a vote before the continuance of the investigations. Its introduction doesn't assume its immediate consideration.

centure also doesn't attract any media punch, nor does it give any investigative powers. Centuring at the very end of his term to take some of the gloss from otherwise unanswered absurdity might be a good idea, but it seems like a bad move to me at the moment.

I'm thinking this is something they'll hold in reserve for late in the session, if nothing else pans out. No official word, though.

What we need is an action that will open up hearings that will demonstrate to the American people what this Administration is all about. Unfortunately there are so MANY crimes, and there is so MUCH subterfuge that the average American thinks it's just some whining Democrats wanting the Republicans to 'play fair'.

Of course, since the MSM is doing nothing to expose this Administration, it is a tough uphill battle. The Dems in Congress MUST be firm and tough on these issues. Censure is a good start. Impeachment is even better. Unfortunately this Administration has stacked the deck and has been so arrogant about its crimes that it will take drastic, dramatic action to bring the crimes to light, stop the damage to our democracy, and hold them responsible for their actions.

This is the difficult course that our Congresspeople MUST embark on to save the democracy. They must not worry about their personal political futures - them MUST get the truth exposed.

The way things are going, by the time censure actually gets to a vote, it will be seen as the "safety valve" for impeachment and many Repubs will vote for it to avoid looking like the total tools that they are.

I say go for what you can. Censure Bush/Cheney in the Senate and begin to impeach Gonzo in the House.

Works for me, Mimi. I think that's exactly where we need to start. And now. Both measures to vote by the first week in August.

I'd like to order both, a large pepperoni pizza with extra cheese and mmm-peach mint.

Do you want a censure with with that? Sure, why not.

Imagine a filibuster on that topic ... that lasts for a week.

It's frequently said by others that an impeachment that doesn't result in a conviction might do the same thing as (or worse) than doing nothing at all, but I think that's highly debatable.

I think its debatable too and I think its the fear talking. If Bush and Cheney are not guilty or found not guilty by the Senate then I'd be the first apologize. But seriously, the debate about the constitutionality of Bush and Cheney's assumed powers is the only way the authority can be rolled back. Frankfurter's gloss is what The Nation's John Nichols referred to the president's tool box of power. Kargo X, John Nochols, Justice Frankfurter... everyone recognizes the threat. What measures have a chance of winning the day?

I am certainly one of the impeachment drum beaters in these parts, but I don't demand that it be necessarily of Bush and/or Cheney. I would be happy if the investigation opened on Gonzales and was allowed to go where it lead. but when you talk about a "toolbox", we desperately need the enhanced powers available in the impeachment toolbox. I'll also note just because you open the investigation does not mean that articles of impeachment have to be voted out nor trial had by the Senate. I fully believe that is where the facts indeed take us, but the process is in a way every bit, if not more, important. I do not fear failing to obtain a conviction; I fear not having the moral fortitude and love of our Constitution to even try to protect it through the process it contains for just this scenario. If now is not the time for the impeachment process to at least be initiated, then exactly what situation would it take?

Censure is a bigger joke than Dean Wormer's "double secret probation" in Animal House. At least Delta House got kicked out.

Kagro, I think the point is that impeachment without conviction is equivalent to censure. If a token number of Republicans does not join in voting to impeach or convict, the spinning is very easy.

If impeachment becomes a prerogative-of-Congress case, Congress can spin this easily. They can say, " We wanted to work with the President when we got here. We even passed the supplemental. But the President still thinks that he can entirely get his own way." I THINK the people will be behind a case put like that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad