# The Great Dem Cave In (?) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 24, 2007, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380 "2007-05-24T17:27:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/81 "2007-05-25T22:05:42Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think it was clear that the poster was referring to an impeachment and a trial in the Senate. In that case, I’d say the answer is “no”, but only because there aren’t enough Republicans who would cross party lines to vote “guilty” in the trial. I think the actual impeachment vote in the House would pass, but that still wouldn’t get Bush out of office. [/QUOTE] Sure, but I think it’s been clear from our country’s previous adventures with impeachment that they are largely political, and, in fact, do not necessarilt have to involve an actual crime – although, agian for political reasons, I’d say that from a practical standpoint they probably do have to allege a crime. But that’s why I phrased the question as I did. The post said: > [@](#): > > There is ample evidence of their lawbreaking already. You can certainly read that to mean, “…ample evidence to suffice for the practical political requirements of the impeachment process…” But you could also infer that the poster meant to say, “…ample evidence of actual, criminal acts, acts that violate the criminal laws of the United States…” My question was intended to clarify which was meant. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/82 "2007-05-25T22:16:29Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] But you could also infer that the poster meant to say, “…ample evidence of actual, criminal acts, acts that violate the criminal laws of the United States…” My question was intended to clarify which was meant. [/QUOTE] Firm, [photographic](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-05/23/xin_510504230936035305263.jpg) evidence of the President of the United States not wearing his seat belt. String 'im up, I say. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/83 "2007-05-25T22:21:26Z")
Maybe he has on a lap belt… 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/84 "2007-05-25T22:35:18Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Do you believe there is enough evidence of their lawbreaking to obtain a guilty verdict in a criminal trial? [/QUOTE] Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate have very, very little to do with a criminal trial; show me where the Constitution defines “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and what the rules of evidence for such crimes are. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/85 "2007-05-25T22:39:01Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate have very, very little to do with a criminal trial; show me where the Constitution defines “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and what the rules of evidence for such crimes are. [/QUOTE] Right…so, there is even less chance of Bush getting impeached than there is of him being convicted of a crime right now, since not enough Pub’s would cross over to make it a realistic possibility (not that Bricker was seemingly even talking to the impeachment thing so its kind of a strawman question I think). So, seriously…people should stop talking about it at this point and instead concentrate on the joy that is: We only have a little over a year and a half to go before Bush is gone! 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/86 "2007-05-25T22:45:16Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] (not that Bricker was seemingly even talking to the impeachment thing so its kind of a strawman question I think). [/QUOTE] ??? The \*\*Bricker \*\* comment I was responding to was in direct response to this: [QUOTE=vibrotronica] There’s only one way to end this war, and that is to **impeach the president and vice president**. [/QUOTE] I don’t see how you could say he wasn’t talking about impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/87 "2007-05-25T22:49:44Z")
Well, see his reply to John Mace in Post #81…he seems to have been thinking about this in a different way. Regardless, you are right…impeachment is a political process, not legal. However, you being right simply means its STILL impossible for the Dem’s to get it done in the present environment, right? And since we are running out of time on the Bush administration its unlikely (to say the least) that Bush WILL be impeached at this point. Right? -XT ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/88 "2007-05-25T22:50:06Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate have very, very little to do with a criminal trial [/QUOTE] I just realized something. I always thought the impeachment phase was akin to an indictment and the Senate vote was akin to a jury verdict. Does a vote in the Senate to convict not equal a criminal verdict? Please clear this up for me. Anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/89 "2007-05-25T23:28:51Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] Does a vote in the Senate to convict not equal a criminal verdict? [/QUOTE] Oh no, not at all. Article I, Section 3: > [@](#): > > Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. They are entirely separate processes. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/90 "2007-05-25T23:41:27Z")
Thanks **Frank**. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/91 "2007-05-25T23:47:45Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Well, see his reply to John Mace in Post #81…he seems to have been thinking about this in a different way. [/QUOTE] But evidence of lawbreaking would certainly be relevant to an impeachment, even if there was never a criminal trial. A president can be impeached on the basis of evidence of crimes, even if he was never convicted of those crimes in a criminal court. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2007, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/92 "2007-05-25T23:54:22Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] You can certainly read that to mean, “…ample evidence to suffice for the practical political requirements of the impeachment process…” But you could also infer that the poster meant to say, “…ample evidence of actual, criminal acts, acts that violate the criminal laws of the United States…” My question was intended to clarify which was meant. [/QUOTE] Well, we’ll have to wait until the poster clarifies. In the absence of clarification, I think the most reasonable interpretation is that he’s talking about impeachment. And I think the poster is mistaken if he thinks impeaching Bush and Cheney and removing them from office would end the war. The Democratic position on the war, to the extent that there is one, is that we should still have some troops in Iraq to fight the al Qaeda element there. And the idea that you can distinguish between al Qaeda violence and non-al Qaeda violence is questionable. Perhaps you can to some extent, but the line is very blurry. Mark my words-- we are going to have troops in Iraq for a very long time to come. The Dems might be able to get some troops out and wind down some of the activities, and I would largely applaud that effort, but I don’t think the hard-core anti-war element, which is well represented on this board, is going to be very happy with that. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/93 "2007-05-26T00:32:01Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] But evidence of lawbreaking would certainly be relevant to an impeachment, even if there was never a criminal trial. A president can be impeached on the basis of evidence of crimes, even if he was never convicted of those crimes in a criminal court. [/QUOTE] Sure…and if such evidence comes out then hang him from the highest tree. I’m just not holding my breath for such evidence to come out between now and next year. Hope springs eternal however… -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/94 "2007-05-26T00:33:50Z")
[QUOTE=LinusK] …Troops in Iraq next fall = Democratic victory. Actually defunding the troops in the middle of a war = political suicide… . [/QUOTE] Then so be it. I’m entirely serious when I piously intone about this issue being above and beyond mere politics. We are destroying our nation internationally, the nation that should be leading is feared and despised. It actually is that important. If there were but one vote, and it was mine…and the deal was get the troops home as quickly as safe and practical…BUT that would ensure that Newt Gingrich was elected to be President…I would take an oxycontin and three stiff shots of bourbon…and I would vote for it. So that’s how goddam serious I am. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/95 "2007-05-26T00:54:20Z")
No one can fault you for sticking to your convinctions 'luci. For my part, I can understand WHY the Dem’s did what they did…but, yeah, looking at it your way they should have been able to make the sacrifice, even if it hurt them in the long run. I actually feel slightly disappointed in myself for going with the political expedience thing now listening to you. You are better at holding my convictions (though from the opposite side of the political spectrum) than I am right now… -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/96 "2007-05-26T01:29:26Z")
Interestingly, this will allow the Pubs to claim it was they who got the Min Wage increase passed, since that was part of the bill. Why do Hillary and Obama hate minimum wage earners? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/97 "2007-05-26T01:39:56Z")
**XT** There’s another factor here that I can’t quite put my finger on, podnuh. Its like the Dems know what the people want, but don’t know it _loud_ enough. The seem to think that intensity of feeling is somehow isolated to the very left, that only [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) is really pissed about this. I think they not only would have gotten away with risking the “unpatriotic” stance, I think they would have actually benefited. But, Lord knows, my view has a distinct slant, gotta double check myself when I see what I expect to see. But in one respect, the collective reponsibility is ours. Yes, we voted, and then politely folded our hands and awaited results. So this could still work out. Assuming I’m right and the public mood on this is as fierce as I sense, they’re gonna catch an earful, and toot damn sweet. They _all_ will, on both sides of the aisle. Pencils have erasers. Minds are changed. If the people lead, the leaders will follow. [veering off topic] But, you know, just between you and me…it may not get to that, I think there’s a very good chance that the Iraqis are going to invite us Elsewhere. The Shia are ready to settle things the old fashioned way, and they don’t need witnesses. [/vot] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/98 "2007-05-26T05:51:54Z")
This from cartoonist Ben Sargent… > **[Today's Comics Online | Read Comic Strips at GoComics](https://www.gocomics.com/)** > > Welcome to GoComics.com, the world's largest comic strip site for online classic strips like Calvin and Hobbes, Baby Blues, Non Sequitur, Get Fuzzy, Luann, Pearl Before Swine, 9 Chickweed Lane and more! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/99 "2007-05-26T16:35:36Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] [veering off topic] But, you know, just between you and me…it may not get to that, I think there’s a very good chance that the Iraqis are going to invite us Elsewhere. The Shia are ready to settle things the old fashioned way, and they don’t need witnesses. [/vot] [/QUOTE] Yes, I’ve been thinking lately that the Iraqi parliament might very well vote us out of Iraq before our Congress does. Sadr looks like he’s trying a very clever power play: > [@](#): > > [Cleric emerges, rallies Shiites > MUQTADA AL-SADR REAPPEARS, CALLS FOR U.S. WITHDRAWAL, END TO SECTARIAN VIOLENCE](http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5994189) > > BAGHDAD, Iraq - The influential Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr emerged publicly on Friday for the first time in months, calling for U.S. forces to leave Iraq and vowing to defend Sunnis and Christians. His appearance, and remarks, seemed part of an ongoing tactical shift by Sadr to recast himself as a nationalist who can unify and lead a post-occupation Iraq. > > \ > > Significantly, Sadr, for perhaps the first time, declared that he would protect Sunnis and Christians, the two groups that his militia has been widely accused of killing by the thousands and driving from their homes, as part of the sectarian violence plaguing the nation. Sadr told his followers that it was “forbidden” to spill “the bloods of our brothers, the Sunnis and Christians.” He railed against Sunni extremists who have recently been forcing Christians to convert to Islam, calling such actions “detestable” and against the principles of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380/100 "2007-05-26T16:40:52Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Yes, I’ve been thinking lately that the Iraqi parliament might very well vote us out of Iraq before our Congress does. Sadr looks like he’s trying a very clever power play: [/QUOTE] I’m not sure I believe we will leave if this happens. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-dem-cave-in/405380.md?page=6)