The point is to get the criminals out of office so that they cannot do more damage than they already have.

It also undermines later claims of executive immunity, and opens the way for prosecutions without any detriment to the conduct of the office.

Clinton’s impeachment was a total botch, including the Special Prosecutor, with the cart before the horse. He should have simply been impeached–Waco was sufficient in my mind, for example–and the Senate might have investigated any matter they wished at their leisure, and in any way they chose.

Impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, and the protections of jury trial are not in force.

The point is removal from office.

Naturally someone will say that the Special Prosecutor was necessary to get the House to the point of impeaching.

And indeed that was the whole point of the Right Wing campaign against Clinton, but in the process an enormous amount of money was spent, the charges were trivial in regard to Clinton’s conduct of office, and in the end it was a farce.

Clinton too was responsible for this.

At any rate, there is no question that Bush and Cheney are indictable for impeachable offenses, including authorizing torture, lying to Congress, and a host of other constitutional issues.

That Paul initially opposed Kucinich’s impeachment motion in regard to Cheney is a sad chapter in Paul’s biography.

Paul said something to the effect that he was not sure Cheney was guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors.

Yet earlier in regard to Clinton’s impeachment, Paul had argued, rightly, that impeachable offenses were defined as whatever the House defined as impeachable by a majority vote.

Hypocrisy come in many subtly graded forms.

I am disappointed with the whole “campaign” at this moment. The best they could do is to use Xenophobia in an ad campaign(which was posted on this blog), which is very pathetic and counterproductive.

I am hoping nobody has any ideas to pocket those remaining Millions of dollars that Paul has in the campaign.

Paul has no chance to get the GOP nomination, only a 3rd party uphill battle could show him to be different from the other candidates. That is if he has any money left.

And I don’t see impeachment as a heavy enough punishment for the (war)crimes that have been committed by those in power.

Ive lived a life thats full.
Ive traveled each and evry highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, Ive had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

I planned each charted course;
Each careful step along the byway,
But more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Yes, there were times, Im sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way.

Ive loved, Ive laughed and cried.
Ive had my fill; my share of losing.
And now, as tears subside,
I find it all so amusing.

To think I did all that;
And may I say - not in a shy way,
No, oh no not me,
I did it my way.

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way!

Paul opposed it initially.

Later he approved sending the motion to Judiciary.

That’s where matters stand now.

I believe Devvy Kidd raises some pretty good issues on that subject:

“As for those who want Ron Paul to leave the GOP and run on a ‘third’ party ticket, that would guarantee he would never occupy the White House. Ross Perot got 9,741,065 popular votes in 1992, but no electoral votes. He received 7,866,284 popular votes in 1996, but no electoral votes. See: Electoral College Votes Already Committed? “The question in my mind: How is it that the media can call the electoral college delegate votes months in advance before the voters go to the polls or the electoral college delegates legally cast their vote?”

“Additionally, many states have what’s called a ’sore loser law,’ which prohibits a candidate who loses a primary from running in the general election. Although one judge has ruled this law unconstitutional, this could turn into a huge mess for Ron Paul and his supporters in states where the GOP will try to enforce it for the “good of the party.”

Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd341.htm

In this run he has made a fool of himself and of many of his supporters.

He will not win the Republican nomination, nor will he change the Party from its corrupt, hypocritical, and war-mongering ways.

He has compromised his own Constitutionalism by refusing to follow his own earlier position on impeachment, which I quoted above and which I find flawless.

Not highlighting his antiwar stance, when he had both the money and the groundswell behind him to do it effectively, is also a clear demonstration of either incompetence or deceit.

Did he bump Giuliani? No doubt, and in doing that he made way for McCain.

The only question now, as Paulite suggests, is whether he will play the “team player” when he loses.

As a great admirer of Paul as maverick in the past, I now no longer care.

In fact, the more I find out about his core supporters the more silly I feel about how often I have defended some of his seemingly Libertarian positions to hostile audiences in the past few months.

Crying “Socialist” in the direction of a hard, clear thinker like Kucinich simply does not cut the mustard anymore.

By wedding himself to the Republican Party and not leading the charge on impeachment, he has become counter-productive, and as John Lowell says, part of the status quo.

The president stands accused of several things, and what is on the forefront of public attention is the charge of perjury and obstruction of justice before a federal grand jury in regards to a civil case involving sexual harassment.

Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives is charged with investigating allegations against a sitting president or judge. While some may talk about whether or not an offense is “impeachable,” that is only so much political rhetoric. The Constitution only specifies that Congress can impeach a president for “high crimes” and “misdemeanors,” but the definitions of those words are left to Congress to determine - anything a sufficient number of Members of Congress find offensive can be cause for impeachment….”

[Ron Paul September 28, 1998]

It also undermines a later claim of executive immunity.

Most important, it sets clear limits to what the Congress is willing to tolerate in the Executive Branch.

I am truly surprised someone like Ron Paul, who claims to be a Consitutionalist, has not been in the forefront of those moving for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, along with many others.

A few years ago, I would have named him as the best bet to be in the forefront.