Conservative Tough Talk on Impeachment

Since Cheney is his own branch of government, can he actually be impeached?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jul 18 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]481145[/snapback]</div>

Calling for impeachment for "Constitutional" reasons is worthless. On those grounds Lincoln could have been impeached for multiple reasons. And any link with the name "Moyers" associated with it is definitely worthy of suspicion.

 

Interesting who Bruce Fein is --

Bruce Fein is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on Constitutional law. Bruce Fein, photo by Robin Holland Graduating from Harvard Law School in 1972, Fein became the assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after that, Fein became the associate deputy attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan.

His political law career would take him to various outlets, including general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 18 2007, 08:20 PM) [snapback]481307[/snapback]</div>

Ohh that says it all, Hes a Lawyer......

 

Yeah, who wudda thunk ?

Oh wait .. he is talking about constitutional law, or the lack thereof by the shrub/cheney insult to democracy.

Wake up, Neo-con. Republicans a whole lot smarter than you are.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jul 19 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]481617[/snapback]</div>

A lawyer who was employed by the REAGAN justice department, who worked for the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Brookings Institute????

So let's see, a guy whose life history is working for Conservative organizations, and you question his credentials because he's a "lawyer"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 20 2007, 06:11 AM) [snapback]482133[/snapback]</div>

From an article about David Addington, Cheney's Chief of Staff:

<blockquote>The net effect of Addington's—and other administration lawyers'—influence on the president's own views, says Bruce Fein, a generally pro-Bush Republican activist, is “quite alarming.†Fein told Mayer* that Addington and his cohorts have “staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other administration. This president has made claims that are really quite alarming. He's said that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance. If you used the president's reasoning, you could shut down Congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declare anyone an illegal combatant. All the world's a battlefield—according to this view, he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It's got the sense of Louis XIV: ‘I am the State.'†</blockquote>*Jane Mayer, “The Hidden Power,†New Yorker, July 3, 2006

As usual, 'hycamguy07' is just another Bush dead-ender who has absolutely no clue as to what he's talking about.

 

LOL! the last three posters, your name-calling is so typical of your ilk. In all likelihood you vilified this guy when he went after Clinton with evidence that he committed perjury and obstructed justice which later ended in a conviction of Clinton, disbarment and impeachment. Now you want to proclaim him a hero because he’s advocating going after Bush with no evidence and as hyc pointed out this guy is a lawyer with a pathological need to litigate and get his name back into the limelight.

If I were and I'm not going too, but I think I'd label you three as Far Leftist Stoogest Buffons or FLSB's for short. :lol:


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 20 2007, 05:33 PM) [snapback]482459[/snapback]</div>

Awww, isn't that cute, the kow is living on some odd planet where Clinton was convicted. Unfortunately, we're here on Earth where Clinton was never convicted. That means that a Senate with a Republican majority ACQUITTED HIM. You DID know that right?

Oh well, some people just like to spew lies.

Either that or they live under the misconception that those of us who live in the reality based community will buy into their revision of history.

The point, my ill-informed friend, is that YOU would support him if he was going after a Democrat, any Democrat (even one acquitted by a Republican led Senate), but if he says anything about your beloved dear leader, you immediately turn on him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 20 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]482465[/snapback]</div>

Sorry et I decided to reedit my post have another look. . .

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...nton+disbarment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

You may be on earth but it must be some other dimension restudy the two-step process we use in this dimension. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 20 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]482468[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm, I don't see where he was convicted anywhere there, must be because he wasn't.

You don't know much about law do you? Clinton VOLUNTARILY surrendered his license in Arkansas to practice law for a period of 5 years. If you are not a member of any state bar, you cannot be admitted to practice before the Supreme court. Thus, because he surrendered his law license, he was no longer legally eligible to practice before the US Supreme Court. You can try to spin that all you like, but the fact remains exactly as I describe.

Once again, he was NOT convicted of any crime in any court.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...12/impeachment/

Hmm, says there he was ACQUITTED.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...13/ai_n14213433

Odd, that says he was acquitted too.

WAIT, what's this? Hmm, this link looks familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Gee, that says he was ACQUITTED too. . . . can you read?

Typical Republican, you LIE, then try to change history to convince people you aren't lying. . . . just like . . . hmmm. . . Bush for instance

Why are you lying?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul , 03:36 PM)</div>

It's all they have left.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 20 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]482495[/snapback]</div>

It's all they ever had from the first when the supreme court 'appointed' junior to him lying about getting our best and brightest killed to global warming to...well EVERYTHING! And it's not just junior. It's the tactic used by all republicans all the time. No honor, dignity, just the winning at any expense, even their countrymen's blood.

 

If Clinton was not impeached why then did the Senate convene and try him on the Articles of Impeachment handed down by the House of Representatives?

Impeachment and Conviction on the Articles of Impeachment handed down are two different things. Clinton was impeached and if you don't believe anyone else on this point read Bill Clinton's book "My Life" wherein he goes into great detail about his impeachment and then I suggest you read the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment."

http://www.ourtimelines.com/zpcimp.html

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/i...nts/clinton.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_...news/238784.stm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

I am not lying and you owe me an apology.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 20 2007, 03:36 PM) [snapback]482495[/snapback]</div>

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Bill Clinton "committed a criminal violation" of the privacy rights of Kathleen Willey by releasing private letters . . .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 22 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]483494[/snapback]</div>

That was a factual finding of a judge while ruling on an evidentiary dispute in a civil law suit. It was not a verdict by a jury or a judge finding President Clinton guilty in a criminal action. As someone with a JD degree, you should know the difference, but then it would appear that you never passed the bar exam.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jul 18 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]481148[/snapback]</div>

teeeheee

Cheney's more like a sucker; these should be removed for the health of the tree...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 23 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]483729[/snapback]</div>

The people that make up the Darwin Awards say that the tree of life is self pruning... maybe it just needs a little help now and then?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 23 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]483680[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for pointing that out IAP.

Perhaps with your legal knowledge you might settle this issue for us?

Wildkow