This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached. It's a
little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment attempt after the
mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes me as (*cringes as he
says this*) fair and balenced - argues logicaly, doesn't even say that he
did anything wrong, just that he MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
.
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
27 Jul 2007 09:22:58 PM |
|
|
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached. It's a
little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that he has to
do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors)
Not that I don't think he should go, but someone has to pony up some
provable charges.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
27 Jul 2007 10:34:30 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached. It's a
little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that he has
to
do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors)
Not that I don't think he should go, but someone has to pony up some
provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The Republicans
lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes and misdemeanors" a
few years ago. All you need now is someone who's willing to pontificate for
two hours about what "the evidence suggests", even if there's no evidence of
any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
27 Jul 2007 09:36:37 PM |
|
|
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
28 Jul 2007 01:17:45 AM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Although I believe that an investigation 1/20th as extensive as what Starr
did in Clinton's case would turn up more than ample evidence, I don't
necessarily think that removal from office is necessary. I want the message
sent to future Presidents that attempts to make the Executive Branch supreme
over the other branches and revocation or watering-down of Constitutional
rights will not be tolerated.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
28 Jul 2007 07:51:18 AM |
|
|
In News IZ6dnXJ8O7T5TDfbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,,
Richardson-Obama in 08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke
at nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it
strikes me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced -
argues logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong,
just that he MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but
someone has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Although I believe that an investigation 1/20th as extensive as what
Starr did in Clinton's case would turn up more than ample evidence, I
don't necessarily think that removal from office is necessary. I
want the message sent to future Presidents that attempts to make the
Executive Branch supreme over the other branches and revocation or
watering-down of Constitutional rights will not be tolerated.
I agree, but if he's not removed from office, and/or otherwise legally
punished, then what incentive will there be for the next president to
restore the Consitutionally defined role for the President and
Constitutional Rights?
Cheney needs to be removed as well and the VP put back into the Executive
Branch of Government where it belongs.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackHawke" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
28 Jul 2007 12:54:25 AM |
|
|
Well here's the problem...
Clarke (who FOX News calls the hero of 9/11) has always aserted (and did in
his book) that Bush wanted to invade Iraq since he got into office and was
looking for an excuse. That after 9/11 he had to convince bush to hit
Afganistan if for NO OTHER reason than the US Wouldn't let him go straight
on to Iraq.
The DSM claimed that most of the intelegence comunity felt that Sadam's WMD
capabilities were low, that Bush knew it but was playing up intelegence he
knew to be bad or suspect, and lied to congress about it.
Now, is this true? I don't know, but VERY serious people (the DSM includes
a number of the highest ranking british officals all of whom said bush was
doctering evidence well before the war) have made SERIOUS acusations which
bush doesn't anwser.
If he misrepresented evidence to start the war (and lied to congress to do
it), you don't think he should be impeached?
Dude, have you read the article?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoThanks@NoSpam.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.impeach,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics.democrat,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.democrat,alt.politics.usa.misc
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reasons for Impeachment
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama
in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Although I believe that an investigation 1/20th as extensive as what Starr
did in Clinton's case would turn up more than ample evidence, I don't
necessarily think that removal from office is necessary. I want the
message
sent to future Presidents that attempts to make the Executive Branch
supreme
over the other branches and revocation or watering-down of Constitutional
rights will not be tolerated.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
28 Jul 2007 12:14:42 PM |
|
|
"BlackHawke" <nsoutter@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ctudnW25xr-FRzfbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com...
Well here's the problem...
Clarke (who FOX News calls the hero of 9/11) has always aserted (and did
in
his book) that Bush wanted to invade Iraq since he got into office and was
looking for an excuse. That after 9/11 he had to convince bush to hit
Afganistan if for NO OTHER reason than the US Wouldn't let him go straight
on to Iraq.
The DSM claimed that most of the intelegence comunity felt that Sadam's
WMD
capabilities were low, that Bush knew it but was playing up intelegence he
knew to be bad or suspect, and lied to congress about it.
Now, is this true? I don't know, but VERY serious people (the DSM
includes
a number of the highest ranking british officals all of whom said bush was
doctering evidence well before the war) have made SERIOUS acusations which
bush doesn't anwser.
If he misrepresented evidence to start the war (and lied to congress to do
it), you don't think he should be impeached?
While I view those lies as horrendous acts, resulting in the unnecessary
deaths of thousands of members of our own military and tens (perhaps
hundreds) of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, I don't
believe those lies constitute the grounds for impeachment that need to be
pursued. While there may be an obscure law regarding intentionally
force-feeding Congress false intelligence, there is certainly no law against
a politician lying to the American people. If there was, Washington would
be a ghost town because everyone would be in jail. Besides that, the false,
faked and cherry-picked intelligence argument would be a difficult one to
prove. Think of it as "O.J. Syndrome". We all know he did it, but proving
it beyond a reasonable doubt wasn't as easy as knowing it.
There are, however, several much better charges that could be brought that
would be much easier to prove. For instance, the Geneva Conventions are a
treaty, ratified years ago by the Senate, and thus have a place alongside
the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The opinion of a lawyer
who's never tried a case (Alberto Gonzales) that those conventions are
"quaint", and can thus be disregarded does not nullify this country's
obligation to abide by them. Thus, when Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsfeld
declared that it was perfectly all right for our interrogators to use
methods that a broadly accepted as "torture", it was a violation of both
international and U.S. law that should certainly rise to the level of high
crimes and misdemeanors. Engaging in wiretapping of U.S. persons on U.S.
soil without a warrant and without following the guidelines of the FISA
court is also a violation of U.S. law, regardless of the possible good
intentions (stopping terrorism by wiretapping a Quaker peace group?) of the
government.
There are other possible charges, but I believe those two to be the most
heinous and most provable.
Dude, have you read the article?
Nope. Got a link to it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoThanks@NoSpam.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.impeach,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics.democrat,alt.politics.democrats,al
t.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.democrat,alt.politics.usa.misc
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reasons for Impeachment
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama
in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it
strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Although I believe that an investigation 1/20th as extensive as what
Starr
did in Clinton's case would turn up more than ample evidence, I don't
necessarily think that removal from office is necessary. I want the
message
sent to future Presidents that attempts to make the Executive Branch
supreme
over the other branches and revocation or watering-down of
Constitutional
rights will not be tolerated.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 03:09:44 AM |
|
|
On Jul 29, 1:14 am, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
While there may be an obscure law regarding intentionally
force-feeding Congress false intelligence, there is certainly no law against
a politician lying to the American people. If there was, Washington would
be a ghost town because everyone would be in jail.
Absolutely. He's just doing his job.
There are, however, several much better charges that could be brought that
would be much easier to prove. For instance, the Geneva Conventions are a
treaty, ratified years ago by the Senate, and thus have a place alongside
the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The opinion of a lawyer
who's never tried a case (Alberto Gonzales) that those conventions are
"quaint", and can thus be disregarded does not nullify this country's
obligation to abide by them. Thus, when Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsfeld
declared that it was perfectly all right for our interrogators to use
methods that a broadly accepted as "torture", it was a violation of both
international and U.S. law that should certainly rise to the level of high
crimes and misdemeanors. Engaging in wiretapping of U.S. persons on U.S.
soil without a warrant and without following the guidelines of the FISA
court is also a violation of U.S. law, regardless of the possible good
intentions (stopping terrorism by wiretapping a Quaker peace group?) of the
government.
There are other possible charges, but I believe those two to be the most
heinous and most provable.
Yep, this is all pretty obvious. Every signing statement Bush makes
declaring his intent to break the law seems like an impeachable crime
to me.
According to Rep. DeFazio, they won't impreach because they haven't
got the votes. It seems equally obvious the Reps won't convict no
matter what the evidence. Impeachment is a political act. The only
way to get it done is for Bush/Cheney to lose so much support that the
Reps won't get reelected unless they vote to convict. That's what
happened with Nixon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 04:46:18 AM |
|
|
<patmpowers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185782984.084924.182690@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 1:14 am, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
While there may be an obscure law regarding intentionally
force-feeding Congress false intelligence, there is certainly no law
against
a politician lying to the American people. If there was, Washington
would
be a ghost town because everyone would be in jail.
Absolutely. He's just doing his job.
There are, however, several much better charges that could be brought
that
would be much easier to prove. For instance, the Geneva Conventions are
a
treaty, ratified years ago by the Senate, and thus have a place
alongside
the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The opinion of a
lawyer
who's never tried a case (Alberto Gonzales) that those conventions are
"quaint", and can thus be disregarded does not nullify this country's
obligation to abide by them. Thus, when Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and
Rumsfeld
declared that it was perfectly all right for our interrogators to use
methods that a broadly accepted as "torture", it was a violation of both
international and U.S. law that should certainly rise to the level of
high
crimes and misdemeanors. Engaging in wiretapping of U.S. persons on
U.S.
soil without a warrant and without following the guidelines of the FISA
court is also a violation of U.S. law, regardless of the possible good
intentions (stopping terrorism by wiretapping a Quaker peace group?) of
the
government.
There are other possible charges, but I believe those two to be the most
heinous and most provable.
Yep, this is all pretty obvious. Every signing statement Bush makes
declaring his intent to break the law seems like an impeachable crime
to me.
According to Rep. DeFazio, they won't impreach because they haven't
got the votes. It seems equally obvious the Reps won't convict no
matter what the evidence. Impeachment is a political act. The only
way to get it done is for Bush/Cheney to lose so much support that the
Reps won't get reelected unless they vote to convict. That's what
happened with Nixon.
Herein lies the biggest problem I have with my own party. We Democrats are
just too damned nice.
The Republicans had no problem whatsoever with impeaching Clinton over a
little oral sex, even though they knew damn well the Senate would never vote
to convict and remove. They did it to make a political statement . . . that
they were all so much more "moral" than Clinton. Never mind that half of
them were seducing interns or hiring hookers at the time. They couldn't
allow the perversion of extramarital oral sex in the White House to go
unpunished.
Now we have a President who scoffs at the law and snickers as he disrespects
the Constitution and everything it stands for. And we have a Vice President
that's far worse than his boss. Their contempt for our Constitution and our
people has permeated through all levels of the Executive Branch, and our
fine Democrats in the House of Representatives are just too damned NICE to
call these bastards out for it because it would be futile with the number of
Republicans in the Senate who feel they owe more allegiance to their party
than to the country.
That's *****. Regardless of who ends up in the White House in 2009, they
need to know that they WILL be held accountable if they abuse their power
like this President and his administration have done. A message needs to be
sent to that next President, and every President that comes after him. And
that message can ONLY be sent by the House of Representatives, and
impeaching George Duhbya Bush and Richard "Shooter" Cheney is the ONLY way
to effectively send it. Force the Senate Republicans to go on record as
supporting the obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" of this
administration! Their votes to acquit will haunt them through their next
reelection campaign.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 04:18:07 AM |
|
|
On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
The Republicans had no problem whatsoever with impeaching Clinton over a
little oral sex, even though they knew damn well the Senate would never vote
to convict and remove. They did it to make a political statement . . . that
they were all so much more "moral" than Clinton. Never mind that half of
them were seducing interns or hiring hookers at the time. They couldn't
allow the perversion of extramarital oral sex in the White House to go
unpunished.
Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a political maneuver. It seems to
have worked for them.
Now we have a President who scoffs at the law and snickers as he disrespects
the Constitution and everything it stands for. And we have a Vice President
that's far worse than his boss. Their contempt for our Constitution and our
people has permeated through all levels of the Executive Branch, and our
fine Democrats in the House of Representatives are just too damned NICE to
call these bastards out for it because it would be futile with the number of
Republicans in the Senate who feel they owe more allegiance to their party
than to the country.
I dunno how nice the Dems are. It seems they feel impeachment would
not be to their political advantage. I don't know whether it would be
or not.
That's *****. Regardless of who ends up in the White House in 2009, they
need to know that they WILL be held accountable if they abuse their power
like this President and his administration have done. A message needs to be
sent to that next President, and every President that comes after him. And
that message can ONLY be sent by the House of Representatives, and
impeaching George Duhbya Bush and Richard "Shooter" Cheney is the ONLY way
to effectively send it.
That makes sense. However it is not clear that impeaching and failing
to convict sends that message. Just think, beating the impeachment
rap could be Bush's biggest triumph in his remaining term as
president. "Validates his Presidency" and so forth. On the other
hand, the continual embarrasment of the B/C administration is a sure
win for the Dems.
Force the Senate Republicans to go on record as
supporting the obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" of this
administration! Their votes to acquit will haunt them through their next
reelection campaign.- Hide quoted text -
I doubt it. Liberal plot to destroy America, loyalty to the commander
in chief during wartime, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 11:11:13 AM |
|
|
<patmpowers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185787087.998416.178640@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
The Republicans had no problem whatsoever with impeaching Clinton over a
little oral sex, even though they knew damn well the Senate would never
vote
to convict and remove. They did it to make a political statement . . .
that
they were all so much more "moral" than Clinton. Never mind that half
of
them were seducing interns or hiring hookers at the time. They couldn't
allow the perversion of extramarital oral sex in the White House to go
unpunished.
Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a political maneuver. It seems to
have worked for them.
Yeah, up until the 2006 elections anyway. It probably would have had a much
more lasting effect if their pick for President in 2000 wouldn't have
screwed everything up for them by being far worse than Clinton once he got
to the White House. Still, look at how many right-wingers (particulary in
these newsgroups) there are that constantly point to Clinton's impeachment
to try to make the GOP look acceptable by comparison.
Now we have a President who scoffs at the law and snickers as he
disrespects
the Constitution and everything it stands for. And we have a Vice
President
that's far worse than his boss. Their contempt for our Constitution and
our
people has permeated through all levels of the Executive Branch, and our
fine Democrats in the House of Representatives are just too damned NICE
to
call these bastards out for it because it would be futile with the
number of
Republicans in the Senate who feel they owe more allegiance to their
party
than to the country.
I dunno how nice the Dems are. It seems they feel impeachment would
not be to their political advantage. I don't know whether it would be
or not.
I've talked to staffers of a number of Democratic Congressmen and two
Decomcratic Senators. The commonest reason I've heard regarding their
bosses' position to not impeach is that they're worried they'll appear as
being as "mean-spirited" as the Republicans were in Clinton's day. I guess
that could be interpreted as a "political advantage" position, but to me
it's just a matter of being too nice to do what's right, and being worring
about being perceived as a "big meanie".
That's *****. Regardless of who ends up in the White House in 2009,
they
need to know that they WILL be held accountable if they abuse their
power
like this President and his administration have done. A message needs
to be
sent to that next President, and every President that comes after him.
And
that message can ONLY be sent by the House of Representatives, and
impeaching George Duhbya Bush and Richard "Shooter" Cheney is the ONLY
way
to effectively send it.
That makes sense. However it is not clear that impeaching and failing
to convict sends that message. Just think, beating the impeachment
rap could be Bush's biggest triumph in his remaining term as
president. "Validates his Presidency" and so forth. On the other
hand, the continual embarrasment of the B/C administration is a sure
win for the Dems.
I don't think anybody views Clinton's "beating the rap" as his biggest
triumph. Righties continue to use the impeachment, despite the lack of a
conviction, as the biggest negative they can throw out for discussion
regarding his presidency. Nobody that I can think of has ever pointed to
the Senate acquittal as "validating" his presidency.
But I agree that the Dems shouldn't go directly after Bush directly and
immediately. If I were Pelosi I would ask Conyers and his committee to
actively pursue impeachment against Gonzales. Once that's pretty much
underway, get Kucinich's resolution regarding Cheney (I believe it's H.R.
333) moving as rapidly as possible. Bush is insulated by both Cheney and
Gonzales and Cheney is insulated by Gonzo. If the full *****-storm of
impeachment is brought against Gonzales, the facts regarding Cheney will
likely start to flow from White House and DoJ underlings. Once Cheney is
effectively neutered, Bush becomes far more vulnerable There's no reason
they can't have all three processes moving forward at the same time, but I
think it would be most effective to keep a Gonzales impeachment ahead of a
Cheney impeachment in the process, with a Bush impeachment following, yet
all three being actively pursued. When you're fighting a giant, swinging at
his head is ineffective. Take out a knee or two first. Then pummel his
gut, until his head drops into easy reach. THEN you go for the knockout.
Force the Senate Republicans to go on record as
supporting the obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" of this
administration! Their votes to acquit will haunt them through their
next
reelection campaign.- Hide quoted text -
I doubt it. Liberal plot to destroy America, loyalty to the commander
in chief during wartime, etc.
Even though that was EXACTLY how Democrats tried to spin the Clinton
impeachment (vast right-wing conspiracy, etc.), it didn't make an adequate
enough spin to keep the neo-cons from using the concept of "restoring
decency to the White House" to capture the government in 2000. I don't
think the Republicans trying to use it in 2008 would be any more effective
for them than it was for us. There are not that many people left in this
country that view Bush as the true representation of America, or that he
deserves loyalty as Commander-in-Chief. Especially since the "wartime" is
basically an unpopular war of his doing and choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 12:56:35 PM |
|
|
On Jul 31, 12:11 am, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
<patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185787087.998416.178640@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
The Republicans had no problem whatsoever with impeaching Clinton over a
little oral sex, even though they knew damn well the Senate would never
vote
to convict and remove. They did it to make a political statement . . .
that
they were all so much more "moral" than Clinton. Never mind that half
of
them were seducing interns or hiring hookers at the time. They couldn't
allow the perversion of extramarital oral sex in the White House to go
unpunished.
Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a political maneuver. It seems to
have worked for them.
Yeah, up until the 2006 elections anyway. It probably would have had a much
more lasting effect if their pick for President in 2000 wouldn't have
screwed everything up for them by being far worse than Clinton once he got
to the White House. Still, look at how many right-wingers (particulary in
these newsgroups) there are that constantly point to Clinton's impeachment
to try to make the GOP look acceptable by comparison.
Now we have a President who scoffs at the law and snickers as he
disrespects
the Constitution and everything it stands for. And we have a Vice
President
that's far worse than his boss. Their contempt for our Constitution and
our
people has permeated through all levels of the Executive Branch, and our
fine Democrats in the House of Representatives are just too damned NICE
to
call these bastards out for it because it would be futile with the
number of
Republicans in the Senate who feel they owe more allegiance to their
party
than to the country.
I dunno how nice the Dems are. It seems they feel impeachment would
not be to their political advantage. I don't know whether it would be
or not.
I've talked to staffers of a number of Democratic Congressmen and two
Decomcratic Senators. The commonest reason I've heard regarding their
bosses' position to not impeach is that they're worried they'll appear as
being as "mean-spirited" as the Republicans were in Clinton's day. I guess
that could be interpreted as a "political advantage" position, but to me
it's just a matter of being too nice to do what's right, and being worring
about being perceived as a "big meanie".
Golly! Well that is inside information. I don't understand their
thinking.
That's *****. Regardless of who ends up in the White House in 2009,
they
need to know that they WILL be held accountable if they abuse their
power
like this President and his administration have done. A message needs
to be
sent to that next President, and every President that comes after him.
And
that message can ONLY be sent by the House of Representatives, and
impeaching George Duhbya Bush and Richard "Shooter" Cheney is the ONLY
way
to effectively send it.
That makes sense. However it is not clear that impeaching and failing
to convict sends that message. Just think, beating the impeachment
rap could be Bush's biggest triumph in his remaining term as
president. "Validates his Presidency" and so forth. On the other
hand, the continual embarrasment of the B/C administration is a sure
win for the Dems.
I don't think anybody views Clinton's "beating the rap" as his biggest
triumph. Righties continue to use the impeachment, despite the lack of a
conviction, as the biggest negative they can throw out for discussion
regarding his presidency. Nobody that I can think of has ever pointed to
the Senate acquittal as "validating" his presidency.
But I agree that the Dems shouldn't go directly after Bush directly and
immediately. If I were Pelosi I would ask Conyers and his committee to
actively pursue impeachment against Gonzales. Once that's pretty much
underway, get Kucinich's resolution regarding Cheney (I believe it's H.R.
333) moving as rapidly as possible. Bush is insulated by both Cheney and
Gonzales and Cheney is insulated by Gonzo. If the full *****-storm of
impeachment is brought against Gonzales, the facts regarding Cheney will
likely start to flow from White House and DoJ underlings. Once Cheney is
effectively neutered, Bush becomes far more vulnerable There's no reason
they can't have all three processes moving forward at the same time, but I
think it would be most effective to keep a Gonzales impeachment ahead of a
Cheney impeachment in the process, with a Bush impeachment following, yet
all three being actively pursued. When you're fighting a giant, swinging at
his head is ineffective. Take out a knee or two first. Then pummel his
gut, until his head drops into easy reach. THEN you go for the knockout.
Force the Senate Republicans to go on record as
supporting the obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" of this
administration! Their votes to acquit will haunt them through their
next
reelection campaign.- Hide quoted text -
I doubt it. Liberal plot to destroy America, loyalty to the commander
in chief during wartime, etc.
Even though that was EXACTLY how Democrats tried to spin the Clinton
impeachment (vast right-wing conspiracy, etc.), it didn't make an adequate
enough spin to keep the neo-cons from using the concept of "restoring
decency to the White House" to capture the government in 2000. I don't
think the Republicans trying to use it in 2008 would be any more effective
for them than it was for us. There are not that many people left in this
country that view Bush as the true representation of America, or that he
deserves loyalty as Commander-in-Chief. Especially since the "wartime" is
basically an unpopular war of his doing and choice.
OK, you've got me convinced. I like your plan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 02:05:27 PM |
|
|
<patmpowers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185818195.853256.130830@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 12:11 am, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
<patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185787087.998416.178640@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
The Republicans had no problem whatsoever with impeaching Clinton
over a
little oral sex, even though they knew damn well the Senate would
never
vote
to convict and remove. They did it to make a political statement .
.. .
that
they were all so much more "moral" than Clinton. Never mind that
half
of
them were seducing interns or hiring hookers at the time. They
couldn't
allow the perversion of extramarital oral sex in the White House to
go
unpunished.
Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a political maneuver. It seems to
have worked for them.
Yeah, up until the 2006 elections anyway. It probably would have had a
much
more lasting effect if their pick for President in 2000 wouldn't have
screwed everything up for them by being far worse than Clinton once he
got
to the White House. Still, look at how many right-wingers (particulary
in
these newsgroups) there are that constantly point to Clinton's
impeachment
to try to make the GOP look acceptable by comparison.
Now we have a President who scoffs at the law and snickers as he
disrespects
the Constitution and everything it stands for. And we have a Vice
President
that's far worse than his boss. Their contempt for our Constitution
and
our
people has permeated through all levels of the Executive Branch, and
our
fine Democrats in the House of Representatives are just too damned
NICE
to
call these bastards out for it because it would be futile with the
number of
Republicans in the Senate who feel they owe more allegiance to their
party
than to the country.
I dunno how nice the Dems are. It seems they feel impeachment would
not be to their political advantage. I don't know whether it would be
or not.
I've talked to staffers of a number of Democratic Congressmen and two
Decomcratic Senators. The commonest reason I've heard regarding their
bosses' position to not impeach is that they're worried they'll appear
as
being as "mean-spirited" as the Republicans were in Clinton's day. I
guess
that could be interpreted as a "political advantage" position, but to me
it's just a matter of being too nice to do what's right, and being
worring
about being perceived as a "big meanie".
Golly! Well that is inside information. I don't understand their
thinking.
I don't either, and I talk to their staffers quite a bit. I don't think the
staffers (I only get to talk to the lower level ones, usually) really
understand themselves. I also have a source within Richardson's national
headquarters, but as far as she knows "Big Bill" hasn't expressed an
official opinion. But I'm going to try to find out where each of the
candidates stands (I think Kucinich's position is the only one clear at this
point) on the issue personally, if I can. Who knows? I might end up having
to change my screen name to "Richardson-Kucinich in 08".
That's *****. Regardless of who ends up in the White House in
2009,
they
need to know that they WILL be held accountable if they abuse their
power
like this President and his administration have done. A message
needs
to be
sent to that next President, and every President that comes after
him.
And
that message can ONLY be sent by the House of Representatives, and
impeaching George Duhbya Bush and Richard "Shooter" Cheney is the
ONLY
way
to effectively send it.
That makes sense. However it is not clear that impeaching and failing
to convict sends that message. Just think, beating the impeachment
rap could be Bush's biggest triumph in his remaining term as
president. "Validates his Presidency" and so forth. On the other
hand, the continual embarrasment of the B/C administration is a sure
win for the Dems.
I don't think anybody views Clinton's "beating the rap" as his biggest
triumph. Righties continue to use the impeachment, despite the lack of
a
conviction, as the biggest negative they can throw out for discussion
regarding his presidency. Nobody that I can think of has ever pointed
to
the Senate acquittal as "validating" his presidency.
But I agree that the Dems shouldn't go directly after Bush directly and
immediately. If I were Pelosi I would ask Conyers and his committee to
actively pursue impeachment against Gonzales. Once that's pretty much
underway, get Kucinich's resolution regarding Cheney (I believe it's
H.R.
333) moving as rapidly as possible. Bush is insulated by both Cheney
and
Gonzales and Cheney is insulated by Gonzo. If the full *****-storm of
impeachment is brought against Gonzales, the facts regarding Cheney will
likely start to flow from White House and DoJ underlings. Once Cheney
is
effectively neutered, Bush becomes far more vulnerable There's no
reason
they can't have all three processes moving forward at the same time, but
I
think it would be most effective to keep a Gonzales impeachment ahead of
a
Cheney impeachment in the process, with a Bush impeachment following,
yet
all three being actively pursued. When you're fighting a giant,
swinging at
his head is ineffective. Take out a knee or two first. Then pummel his
gut, until his head drops into easy reach. THEN you go for the
knockout.
Force the Senate Republicans to go on record as
supporting the obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors" of this
administration! Their votes to acquit will haunt them through their
next
reelection campaign.- Hide quoted text -
I doubt it. Liberal plot to destroy America, loyalty to the commander
in chief during wartime, etc.
Even though that was EXACTLY how Democrats tried to spin the Clinton
impeachment (vast right-wing conspiracy, etc.), it didn't make an
adequate
enough spin to keep the neo-cons from using the concept of "restoring
decency to the White House" to capture the government in 2000. I don't
think the Republicans trying to use it in 2008 would be any more
effective
for them than it was for us. There are not that many people left in
this
country that view Bush as the true representation of America, or that he
deserves loyalty as Commander-in-Chief. Especially since the "wartime"
is
basically an unpopular war of his doing and choice.
OK, you've got me convinced. I like your plan.
I just wish Nancy Pelosi did, as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
01 Aug 2007 06:34:36 AM |
|
|
On Jul 31, 3:05 am, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
<patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185818195.853256.130830@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 12:11 am, "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTha...@NoSpam.com>
I don't understand their
thinking.
I don't either, and I talk to their staffers quite a bit. I don't think the
staffers (I only get to talk to the lower level ones, usually) really
understand themselves. I also have a source within Richardson's national
headquarters, but as far as she knows "Big Bill" hasn't expressed an
official opinion. But I'm going to try to find out where each of the
candidates stands (I think Kucinich's position is the only one clear at this
point) on the issue personally, if I can. Who knows? I might end up having
to change my screen name to "Richardson-Kucinich in 08".
I think they are -- how shall I phrase this delicately? -- not being
completely forthright.
I suspect the sources of campaign funds may have some say in the
matter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackHawke" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
29 Jul 2007 10:52:25 PM |
|
|
Thank you for taking the time to discuss.
1) The law about lying is not obscure. It was the 5th of the 5 charges
against clinton (for lying to Henry Hide, in writing, pertaining to the
purgery case) - lying to congress is considered EXTREAMLY serious and is
VIGORSLY pursued.
2) The link to the article is here: http://lamarsoutternews.com/2005/06/
3) The article is two years old, and I think you're right, the Geniva
convention violations MAY be a better bet (And the wire tampping FOR SURE,
there's no real debate that that was a violation of law amongst anyone, and
the Bar Association unanimiously condemed it).
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoThanks@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:O5CdnWMnjdTA9jbbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"BlackHawke" <nsoutter@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ctudnW25xr-FRzfbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com...
Well here's the problem...
Clarke (who FOX News calls the hero of 9/11) has always aserted (and did
in
his book) that Bush wanted to invade Iraq since he got into office and
was
looking for an excuse. That after 9/11 he had to convince bush to hit
Afganistan if for NO OTHER reason than the US Wouldn't let him go
straight
on to Iraq.
The DSM claimed that most of the intelegence comunity felt that Sadam's
WMD
capabilities were low, that Bush knew it but was playing up intelegence
he
knew to be bad or suspect, and lied to congress about it.
Now, is this true? I don't know, but VERY serious people (the DSM
includes
a number of the highest ranking british officals all of whom said bush
was
doctering evidence well before the war) have made SERIOUS acusations
which
bush doesn't anwser.
If he misrepresented evidence to start the war (and lied to congress to
do
it), you don't think he should be impeached?
While I view those lies as horrendous acts, resulting in the unnecessary
deaths of thousands of members of our own military and tens (perhaps
hundreds) of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, I don't
believe those lies constitute the grounds for impeachment that need to be
pursued. While there may be an obscure law regarding intentionally
force-feeding Congress false intelligence, there is certainly no law
against
a politician lying to the American people. If there was, Washington would
be a ghost town because everyone would be in jail. Besides that, the
false,
faked and cherry-picked intelligence argument would be a difficult one to
prove. Think of it as "O.J. Syndrome". We all know he did it, but
proving
it beyond a reasonable doubt wasn't as easy as knowing it.
There are, however, several much better charges that could be brought that
would be much easier to prove. For instance, the Geneva Conventions are a
treaty, ratified years ago by the Senate, and thus have a place alongside
the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The opinion of a lawyer
who's never tried a case (Alberto Gonzales) that those conventions are
"quaint", and can thus be disregarded does not nullify this country's
obligation to abide by them. Thus, when Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and
Rumsfeld
declared that it was perfectly all right for our interrogators to use
methods that a broadly accepted as "torture", it was a violation of both
international and U.S. law that should certainly rise to the level of high
crimes and misdemeanors. Engaging in wiretapping of U.S. persons on U.S.
soil without a warrant and without following the guidelines of the FISA
court is also a violation of U.S. law, regardless of the possible good
intentions (stopping terrorism by wiretapping a Quaker peace group?) of
the
government.
There are other possible charges, but I believe those two to be the most
heinous and most provable.
Dude, have you read the article?
Nope. Got a link to it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoThanks@NoSpam.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.impeach,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics.democrat,alt.politics.democrats,al
t.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.democrat,alt.politics.usa.misc
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reasons for Impeachment
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,,
Richardson-Obama
in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke
at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it
strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that
he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Although I believe that an investigation 1/20th as extensive as what
Starr
did in Clinton's case would turn up more than ample evidence, I don't
necessarily think that removal from office is necessary. I want the
message
sent to future Presidents that attempts to make the Executive Branch
supreme
over the other branches and revocation or watering-down of
Constitutional
rights will not be tolerated.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 12:35:34 AM |
|
|
"BlackHawke" <No_SPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dtydnXWEVMsQ_TDbnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com...
Thank you for taking the time to discuss.
1) The law about lying is not obscure. It was the 5th of the 5 charges
against clinton (for lying to Henry Hide, in writing, pertaining to the
purgery case) - lying to congress is considered EXTREAMLY serious and is
VIGORSLY pursued.
The law about lying to Congress is not obscure when the person lies to
Congress while "under oath". In Clinton's case that charge was eventually
tossed out of the Articles of Impeachment because it was questioned by many
that what he said under oath was actually a lie, because of the very narrow
definition of "sex" provided by Paula Jones' legal team and their pro bono
advisor, Ken Starr. But Bush has neither testified before Congress "under
oath" nor given a "sworn" affidavit. The strongest case anyone could make
for Bush lying to Congress "under oath" is the interpretation of many
Constitutional Law experts that the State of the Union Address, being
mandated by the Constitution and thus by the President's Oath of Office, can
be considered as being made while "under oath". Thus the infamous "sixteen
words" uttered in the 2003 State of the Union Address could be considered
perjury, but ONLY if it could be proven that Bush knew they were a lie when
he said them. Since nobody's been able to prove that Bush has EVER truly
known ANYTHING, that could be very difficult to prove.
2) The link to the article is here: http://lamarsoutternews.com/2005/06/
3) The article is two years old, and I think you're right, the Geniva
convention violations MAY be a better bet (And the wire tampping FOR SURE,
there's no real debate that that was a violation of law amongst anyone,
and
the Bar Association unanimiously condemed it).
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoThanks@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:O5CdnWMnjdTA9jbbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"BlackHawke" <nsoutter@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ctudnW25xr-FRzfbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com...
Well here's the problem...
Clarke (who FOX News calls the hero of 9/11) has always aserted (and
did
in
his book) that Bush wanted to invade Iraq since he got into office and
was
looking for an excuse. That after 9/11 he had to convince bush to hit
Afganistan if for NO OTHER reason than the US Wouldn't let him go
straight
on to Iraq.
The DSM claimed that most of the intelegence comunity felt that Sadam's
WMD
capabilities were low, that Bush knew it but was playing up intelegence
he
knew to be bad or suspect, and lied to congress about it.
Now, is this true? I don't know, but VERY serious people (the DSM
includes
a number of the highest ranking british officals all of whom said bush
was
doctering evidence well before the war) have made SERIOUS acusations
which
bush doesn't anwser.
If he misrepresented evidence to start the war (and lied to congress to
do
it), you don't think he should be impeached?
While I view those lies as horrendous acts, resulting in the unnecessary
deaths of thousands of members of our own military and tens (perhaps
hundreds) of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, I don't
believe those lies constitute the grounds for impeachment that need to
be
pursued. While there may be an obscure law regarding intentionally
force-feeding Congress false intelligence, there is certainly no law
against
a politician lying to the American people. If there was, Washington
would
be a ghost town because everyone would be in jail. Besides that, the
false,
faked and cherry-picked intelligence argument would be a difficult one
to
prove. Think of it as "O.J. Syndrome". We all know he did it, but
proving
it beyond a reasonable doubt wasn't as easy as knowing it.
There are, however, several much better charges that could be brought
that
would be much easier to prove. For instance, the Geneva Conventions are
a
treaty, ratified years ago by the Senate, and thus have a place
alongside
the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The opinion of a
lawyer
who's never tried a case (Alberto Gonzales) that those conventions are
"quaint", and can thus be disregarded does not nullify this country's
obligation to abide by them. Thus, when Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and
Rumsfeld
declared that it was perfectly all right for our interrogators to use
methods that a broadly accepted as "torture", it was a violation of both
international and U.S. law that should certainly rise to the level of
high
crimes and misdemeanors. Engaging in wiretapping of U.S. persons on
U.S.
soil without a warrant and without following the guidelines of the FISA
court is also a violation of U.S. law, regardless of the possible good
intentions (stopping terrorism by wiretapping a Quaker peace group?) of
the
government.
There are other possible charges, but I believe those two to be the most
heinous and most provable.
Dude, have you read the article?
Nope. Got a link to it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoThanks@NoSpam.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.impeach,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics.democrat,alt.politics.democrats,al
t.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.democrat,alt.politics.usa.misc
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reasons for Impeachment
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,,
Richardson-Obama
in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke
at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it
strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that
he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say
that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but
someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Although I believe that an investigation 1/20th as extensive as what
Starr
did in Clinton's case would turn up more than ample evidence, I don't
necessarily think that removal from office is necessary. I want the
message
sent to future Presidents that attempts to make the Executive Branch
supreme
over the other branches and revocation or watering-down of
Constitutional
rights will not be tolerated.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Loblaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
28 Jul 2007 02:02:55 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Your point?
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BlackHawke" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
29 Jul 2007 10:58:02 PM |
|
|
The point (I think, and certanly in the original article) is that you don't
have to KNOW for a FACT that the presedent did something wrong to impeach.
You just have to have enough evidence to bring charges (like a grand jury
inditement).
The article lists a number of reasons why that burdon was met (two years
ago) and he should be impeached (for the sole reason of determining if or
not he's guilty, something that is much easier to do with supeona powers
which the Senate does not have without an impeachment).
Though the article does not say this, I think the implication is that IF
he's truly guilty of what they claim there's evidence for, that he should be
removed from office.
The article, again, is at http://lamarsoutternews.com/2005/06/
"Bob Loblaw" <Lawblog@loblaw.law> wrote in message
news:46ab935d$0$4693$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama
in 08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Your point?
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
30 Jul 2007 12:55:14 AM |
|
|
"BlackHawke" <No_SPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:j-udnUw7OYxA_DDbnZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@comcast.com...
The point (I think, and certanly in the original article) is that you
don't
have to KNOW for a FACT that the presedent did something wrong to impeach.
You just have to have enough evidence to bring charges (like a grand jury
inditement).
The article lists a number of reasons why that burdon was met (two years
ago) and he should be impeached (for the sole reason of determining if or
not he's guilty, something that is much easier to do with supeona powers
which the Senate does not have without an impeachment).
Correction: The Senate absolutely DOES have supeona powers. In fact,
they've been using them the past few weeks. Please stay up to date with the
news instead of reading articles by someone who can't spell Henry Hyde's
name (Hyde . . . not "Hide") correctly.
Though the article does not say this, I think the implication is that IF
he's truly guilty of what they claim there's evidence for, that he should
be
removed from office.
The article, again, is at http://lamarsoutternews.com/2005/06/
"Bob Loblaw" <Lawblog@loblaw.law> wrote in message
news:46ab935d$0$4693$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama
in 08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
Your point?
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackHawke" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
28 Jul 2007 12:49:02 AM |
|
|
NO, that is NOT TRUE.
The evidence was clear, he was guilty, and that was read into the record.
He was aquited because while he was guilty, the crimes of which he was
guilty were not found to rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The record CLEARLY stated he was guilty of purgery and the offences they
charged with him (at least the Senate thought he was guilty).
The difference is criticaly important, because it pertains to the bush
impeachment debate.
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
28 Jul 2007 11:54:56 AM |
|
|
"BlackHawke" <nsoutter@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:mtCdnTOOIatIRTfbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
NO, that is NOT TRUE.
The evidence was clear, he was guilty, and that was read into the record.
No, it was not. You're thinking of what was read into the record during the
House proceedings where he was impeached. Impeachment is nothing more than
an accusation . . . on the same level as an indictment in the criminal court
process. The determination of guilt or innocence, per the Constitution,
lies with the Senate. What was read into the record during that phase of
the process was two verdicts: NOT guilty of perjury and NOT guilty of
obstruction of justice.
He was aquited because while he was guilty, the crimes of which he was
guilty were not found to rise to the level of High Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
No, he was acquitted because the Senate realized that "providing technically
accurate, but misleading testimony" did not constitute perjury. Although he
was clearly guilty of contempt for telling the truth, but not the "whole
truth", the House had not listed "contempt of court" as one of the articles
of impeachment, because even the highly partisan House did not feel that
particular charge rose to the leve of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The record CLEARLY stated he was guilty of purgery and the offences they
charged with him (at least the Senate thought he was guilty).
No, they did not. If they had thought he was guilty they would have FOUND
him guilty and removed him from office.
The difference is criticaly important, because it pertains to the bush
impeachment debate.
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama
in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BlackHawke" |
|
| Title: Re: Reasons for Impeachment |
29 Jul 2007 10:47:05 PM |
|
|
I know what an impeachment is, I read the article, No, what I'm thinking of
was a NY-Times article in which seanetors who voted against finding him
guilty argued that they felt he was guilty, but not of any offence for which
he could be removed from office.
This is a little surprising since they could EASILY have found him guilty
and chosen to not remove him from office (the constitution states that they
MAY remove him with a guilty verdect, but do not have to). None the less a
number of senators felt that they would not convict, despite believing he
was guilty, because the charges shouldn't have been brought in the first
place since this was not a crime rising to the level of High Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
I should have said that they "went on record", though I have a vague
recolection that there was an opinion entered into the senate record (which
CAN be entered into the record ASSIDE from the verdect) which read that they
aquited soely on the fact that the charges should not have been brought, not
on his inocence (which is an important distinction).
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoThanks@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:oIKdnePt178m-zbbnZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@comcast.com...
"BlackHawke" <nsoutter@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:mtCdnTOOIatIRTfbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
NO, that is NOT TRUE.
The evidence was clear, he was guilty, and that was read into the record.
No, it was not. You're thinking of what was read into the record during
the
House proceedings where he was impeached. Impeachment is nothing more
than
an accusation . . . on the same level as an indictment in the criminal
court
process. The determination of guilt or innocence, per the Constitution,
lies with the Senate. What was read into the record during that phase of
the process was two verdicts: NOT guilty of perjury and NOT guilty of
obstruction of justice.
He was aquited because while he was guilty, the crimes of which he was
guilty were not found to rise to the level of High Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
No, he was acquitted because the Senate realized that "providing
technically
accurate, but misleading testimony" did not constitute perjury. Although
he
was clearly guilty of contempt for telling the truth, but not the "whole
truth", the House had not listed "contempt of court" as one of the
articles
of impeachment, because even the highly partisan House did not feel that
particular charge rose to the leve of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The record CLEARLY stated he was guilty of purgery and the offences they
charged with him (at least the Senate thought he was guilty).
No, they did not. If they had thought he was guilty they would have FOUND
him guilty and removed him from office.
The difference is criticaly important, because it pertains to the bush
impeachment debate.
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:VYxqi.11597$rR.7022@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News KaidnQdTW5-8NjfbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com,, Richardson-Obama
in
08 at NoThanks@NoSpam.com, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:6Mxqi.11593$rR.2972@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 0YGdnfrOsta4OjfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com,, BlackHawke at
nsoutter@mindspring.com, typed this:
This politics blog has an essay on why Bush should be impeached.
It's a little old (it predicts Conyers will make an impeachment
attempt after the mid-terms, which of course he did), but it strikes
me as (*cringes as he says this*) fair and balenced - argues
logicaly, doesn't even say that he did anything wrong, just that he
MUST be impeached.
It's at http://lamarsoutternews.com/?p=4
That's all nice and everything, but the Constitution does say that
he has to do something wrong (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors) Not that I don't think he should go, but someone
has to pony up some provable charges.
The charges don't have to be provable. Just assertable. The
Republicans lowered the bar on what constitutes "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" a few years ago.
Yes, but their attempt ended in an aquittal for lack of evidence.
< All you need now is someone who's
willing to pontificate for two hours about what "the evidence
suggests", even if there's no evidence of any real wrongdoing.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
