I Sit Corrected.
Earlier this morning, I posted an idea calling for Durbin’s impeachment. I posted that we needed five Democrats to cross the aisle, and join for a solid conviction in the Senate. I stand corrected. Sixty votes aren’t needed for such a move. Sixty-seven are, which means we would need twelve to cross the aisle; a prospect highly unlikely in today’s Senate. As a matter of fact I would venture a guess it would be as unlikely now as it was when Clinton’s impeachment hit the Senate floor.
In that regard, I retract my previous call. Yes, I believe his crime warrants impeachment, BUT without a conviction to remove him from the Senate, it’s not worth it. All impeachment means is a he got a "super-censure"; a strong reprimand. Whoopty-Doo. The problem’s still there, and still has basically all of his power as a senator. I said he needed to go, but if it’s not possible to gain a conviction, the battle’s not worth commencing.
If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. –Sun-Tzu’s 9th Rule under "Attack By Strategem"
In that respect, we should not engage if victory in the campaign is not able to be completed. In my opinion, victory means getting twelve Democrats to cross the aisle. If it’s not likely, then there’s zero need to mount the initial assault. To proceed with impeachment would be a waste of our time, and the taxpayers money.
In my opinion, does it need to be done? Absolutely. His offense is egregious enough to warrant removal from office. I cited US Code this morning concerning treason. It’s not a charge I toss around lightly. I feel what he did was treason because it’s proven in a provision of the law. He did "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere..." That’s not in dispute. His offense was a grave one, and it deserves punishment. But at this point censuring him isn’t it. You can’t do impeachment because of the numbers you have to attract from the other side. The only thing you have left is pressure for his resignation, preferably from the Senate completely, but I’ll "moderate" myself, and simply call for him to resign his position as Minority Whip. It’s only fitting.
Lott lost his job as Majority Leader for far less an offense. It was still wrong, and to some, it was reprehensible. But what Durbin said went beyond Lott, and it deserves the proper punishment.
Publius II
Earlier this morning, I posted an idea calling for Durbin’s impeachment. I posted that we needed five Democrats to cross the aisle, and join for a solid conviction in the Senate. I stand corrected. Sixty votes aren’t needed for such a move. Sixty-seven are, which means we would need twelve to cross the aisle; a prospect highly unlikely in today’s Senate. As a matter of fact I would venture a guess it would be as unlikely now as it was when Clinton’s impeachment hit the Senate floor.
In that regard, I retract my previous call. Yes, I believe his crime warrants impeachment, BUT without a conviction to remove him from the Senate, it’s not worth it. All impeachment means is a he got a "super-censure"; a strong reprimand. Whoopty-Doo. The problem’s still there, and still has basically all of his power as a senator. I said he needed to go, but if it’s not possible to gain a conviction, the battle’s not worth commencing.
If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. –Sun-Tzu’s 9th Rule under "Attack By Strategem"
In that respect, we should not engage if victory in the campaign is not able to be completed. In my opinion, victory means getting twelve Democrats to cross the aisle. If it’s not likely, then there’s zero need to mount the initial assault. To proceed with impeachment would be a waste of our time, and the taxpayers money.
In my opinion, does it need to be done? Absolutely. His offense is egregious enough to warrant removal from office. I cited US Code this morning concerning treason. It’s not a charge I toss around lightly. I feel what he did was treason because it’s proven in a provision of the law. He did "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere..." That’s not in dispute. His offense was a grave one, and it deserves punishment. But at this point censuring him isn’t it. You can’t do impeachment because of the numbers you have to attract from the other side. The only thing you have left is pressure for his resignation, preferably from the Senate completely, but I’ll "moderate" myself, and simply call for him to resign his position as Minority Whip. It’s only fitting.
Lott lost his job as Majority Leader for far less an offense. It was still wrong, and to some, it was reprehensible. But what Durbin said went beyond Lott, and it deserves the proper punishment.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home