Is It "Too Late To Impeach"?

Most Americans know that Bush, Cheney and the boys have committed impeachable offenses.

But they assume it is "too late to impeach" them.

Are they right?

Well, in 1876, Secretary of War General William Belknap (who served in the administration of Pres. Ulysses Grant), accused of accepting a bribe, resigned just hours before the House was scheduled to consider articles of impeachment. The House went ahead and unanimously impeached him, and by a vote of 37-29 the Senate rejected the argument that Belknap’s resignation should abort the case.

Indeed, numerous constitutional experts have stated that Bush and Cheney can be impeached even after they are out of office (see this, for example).

If articles of impeachment can be introduced even after Bush and Cheney are out of office, it is obviously not too late to introduce them now, while they are still in office.

What Good Would It Do?

Many people respond, "I know we can do it, but what good would it do?"

Well, for one thing, it could prevent war against Iran or another Middle Eastern country.

And it might prevent a false flag attack.

But there is another important reason to impeach. Impeachment was designed to be a deterrent, not just a punishment. The Founding Fathers included impeachment provisions in the Constitution so that if a president tried to act like a king, Congress could nip the tyrannical impulse in the bud, and tell all future presidents "Don't try it . . . We'll stop you!"

Unless Bush, Cheney and the whole lot of them are impeached, Congress will be ignoring the wishes of the framers and instead be loudly saying to future administrations "Go ahead . . . Bush and Cheney got away with it, and so can you".

As Professor Kalt of Michigan State University College of Law writes:

Structurally, impeachment is designed not just to remove but to deter, and this effect would be severely undermined if it faded away near the end of a term.

And see this discussion with Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein.

Many rank-and-file Democrats have bought Pelosi's line that impeachment would be a "distraction", and that we should just focus on getting Obama elected.

Even putting aside the fact that a new war or terror attack would help McCain, the issue of election fraud (could McCain steal the election?), or the possibility that Bush might suspend elections in case of a "national emergency", impeachment is arguably a good election strategy for Democrats.

In any event, even from a strictly selfish, partisan perspective, the Democrats must learn the lesson that failing to impeach Richard Nixon and hold him accountable enabled Bush and Cheney to do what they've done. Unless the Democrats want to face an even more tyrannical White House in the future, they have to stand up and hold these guys accountable NOW.

impeaching him may not be possible

but the process of impeachment should move forward . . Bush and co-conspirators need hard jail time . . . that should be the goal

Impeaching just means

starting a formal investigation.

"Removal" is the step which actually kicks them out of office

For example, Clinton was "impeached", but not "removed".


Just Impeach the Criminals

What are we waiting for, and how many laws need to be broken?

Just Impeach the Criminals.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Received this reply from a letter I wrote calling

for Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to support Rep. Kucinich's effort to impeach President Bush:

June 16, 2008

Dear Mr. Duveen,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about possible impeachment proceedings for Executive Branch officials. I share your concern that more must be done to address the serious issues that face our country, including expanding health care, energy independence and finding a successful exit strategy for the War in Iraq ; however, at this time, I do not believe that impeachment proceedings would be productive in moving this country forward.

I believe that the new majority in Congress must continue to focus on our national priorities and put pressure on the Executive Branch to become more transparent with the American people. This Congress has - and will continue to hold - oversight hearings on all of the issues that have troubled us over the last six years, including the decision to go to war with Iraq , the use of domestic wiretaps without the benefit of warrants, and the use of no-bid contracts in both Iraq and Katrina reconstruction. These hearings will restore needed accountability our constitution requires.

I also believe that bi-partisanship is essential for enhancing our country's potential, and I will continue to team with both Democrats and Republicans to be an advocate for the residents of Upstate New York on the national level. Thank you again for writing to me about your concerns, and I hope that you keep in touch with my office regarding future legislation and concerns you may have.


Kirsten Gillibrand
Member of Congress

I reproduce this letter because it basically reflects the party line and talking points regarding impeachment.

How can I put this delicately?

The reason Pelosi and her fellow Democrat congressional "leaders" won't permit impeachment proceedings or defund Bush's illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't to help somehow elect a Democrat president or to prevent the Democrat Party from later being accused of "losing" those countries, or whatever the latest ever-changing excuse is.

Those are just cover stories to obscure the real reason for letting Bush off the hook and to keep those wars going.

The real reason is that Pelosi and the others have instructions from AIPAC to let Bush finish his term unimpeded and to keep America's wars for Israel going if they know what's good for them: keeping those AIPAC contributions coming in; enjoying the good graces of the Mockingbird media; and avoiding unfortunate "tragedies" in the vein of anthrax-in-the-mail and the suspicious plane crash that killed Senator Wellstone.

Pelosi, a career political hack from a wealthy political dynasty, knows all too well on which side her bread is buttered.


that's a big part of it


that's a big part of it

and someone's making all those billions of dollars on the war . . . another thought . . . the Clinton impeachment was a staged event to innoculate this bunch from an impeachment attempt . . . conjecture I readily admit

Impeach after elections...

The ONE PLACE that I would NEVER give control of investigations into corrupt politicians in the White House and in congress, ie: those who are raping this country and this world from the hieghts of WDC is of course, congress!

There would NEVER be a faster "behind closed doors for security reasons" action applied to "the American people" hoping to be able to follow the "public" [ yeah right ] investigation. The 9/11 Commission Report would look like an Encyclopedia in comparison to whatever "results" the congress would have in "impeaching" this thug laden Bush Regime and know them, those who are all complicit in these crimes one way or another...[certainly excepting a few].

There are undoubtedly a few folks in the congress, and THOUSANDS of more civilians who may well bring those in The Bush Crime Family up on charges of murder and treason, and the like when the opportunity presents itself. Indeeed, impeaching MAY disqualify and "dissapear" some of the evidence that would eventually be required in civil court actions. These thugs deserve to be indicted and jailed, not hidden in the back cloak rooms in the halls of congress, or whisped away to private golf courses and foriegn countries for the rest of their lives.

However, there is a line of thought that IF Bush were to be impeached BEFORE he leaves office, that he cannot pardon his Den of, there is a possible plan that IF McCain doesn't become president, Bush can be impeached between the first week in November and January 20th, 2009. However, one good old October terrorist attack somewhere in the world that frightens the "soccer moms", and McCain is in...

So, the idea floating around is to begin to impeach these criminals [on just a few counts] the day after the elections in November if McCain loses. This may inhibit Bush's ability to pardon the killers and thieves and allow their violations of national and international laws to drive the indictments for war crimes and the like.

Just one of the things that I heard around the beat...hope it works!

James B. Stewart's book "Den of Thieves" that focused upon Ivan Boesky and his fellow crooks working over Wall Street for billions in profiteering, has now grown to include everything that happens in WDC. This swelling of The Den of Thieves has now radically expanded its world of influence and stealing to...the world.

Somebody, somewhere, sometime has to do something about the putridity of power and control held by the power brokers, the financial institutions, the hubs of corporate media, and the pockets of academic influence and "information shaping" that staulk the country and world from the northeastern part of the USofA.

From the Ivies in New England and the Boston area through Manhattan and on down to WDC there is just too much power and influence that is self-serving. Throw in anything that comes out of Texas [excepting Moyers upon occasion], and of course don't overlook the "violence is OK" outputs of Hollywood, and it all forms quite the formidible opposition to peace and justice. But truth is indeed powerful and I remain quite hopeful.

Love, Peace and Progress with:


Robin Hordon

I agree, impeachment should

I agree, impeachment should start now. Why wait until Bush pardons Scooter Libby, Jack Abramhoff and Tom Delay. Why wait until Bush invades Iran. Why wait until gas hits $5 a gallon.


HR 1258: The Kucinich Privilege Resolution
This resolution is a motion to refer the issue of impeachment of President Bush to the Judiciary Committee.
PASSED on June 11, 2008!
Congratulations to those of you who live in Congressional Districts 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29 and 30…your representatives voted FOR the motion. Please call them and thank them for their courage and their vote, especially those who voted in opposition to their own party.
To those in Congressional Districts 19, 27 and 32…your representative DID NOT VOTE. Please call them to voice your concern over their absence in such an important vote and remind them that there are people in their constituency who believe that the president should be investigated.
To those in Congressional Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 24, 26 and 31…your representatives voted AGAINST the motion. Please contact them to let them know that there are people in their constituency who believe that the president should be investigated, regardless of party affiliation, and that the only way for Republicans to regain an upright reputation is to act in an upright manner.

If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

Impeachment proceedings necessary

Great Article, GW!

Impeachment proceedings are the only thing that could put this criminal government on its heels, and possibly, prevent more war and false flag attacks!

...don't believe them!