Impeachment hearings?

They should at least hold hearings, then depending on the factual outcome, decide from there.

 

It would be a terrible idea. The country doesn't need that sort of partisan devisiveness. The gov't has already been reduced to ineffectiveness through petulence from both sides. Everybody is so busy demonizing everyone else that there's not common ground, no chance for compromise... which is precisely how things get done in a democracy.

 

Impeachment is meant to be a serious thing. What happened to Bill Clinton was a joke. We can't go into an atmosphere of using impeachment every time the party out of the White House wants to make a political point.

 

I hate Bush jr. but think Democrats need to take the high road. "Do unto others", and all that.
Get the Neocons out of there and let the healing begin! B)

 

Many years ago, when Reagan was president, and the Iran/Contra scandal broke, and we found out that Oliver North, working from the White House itself, was illegally selling weapons to iran and using the profits to illegally send weapons to the Contras, Reagan denied having any knowledge of it.

There were voices calling for him to be impeached, on the grounds that he was either incompetent, for being unaware of an illegal war being waged from the very White House, or else he was responsible for the illegal war and illegal arms dealing, in which case he was in grave violation of his oath of office.

Byron Dorgan, Democrat, of North Dakota (then a member of the House of Reps, now a Senator) stated, in answer to the question of whether Reagan should be impeached, that he should not, because "it would be too traumatic for the country."

This was a member of the opposing party, coming out against impeaching a president, not because he believed the president to be innocent, but because he thought the "trauma" of an impeachment would be worse for the country than a president who was either in flagrant violation of his oath of office, or else completely incompetent.

The Republicans, years later, did not think it would be "too traumatic" to impeach a Democratic president for getting a blow job.

I think Bush should be impeached. But I know the Democrats lack the will to do it. In the end, they're all sleeping with each other.

 

Think real hard;

If Bush gets impeached and convicted, who will be President?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 23 2006, 09:11 PM) [snapback]337184[/snapback]</div>

From Wikipedia:
"The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore."

So, the Democrats would have to control both houses to pull this off. Is that likely? Don't know....

Huskers says:
"Impeachment is meant to be a serious thing. What happened to Bill Clinton was a joke. We can't go into an atmosphere of using impeachment every time the party out of the White House wants to make a political point."

I'm not pushing for impeachment, but if you don't find what Bush has done over the past six years "serious" then what is? Clinton had a little fun for which his wife should determine the appropriate penalty. Bush's lies and arrogance have resulted in thousands of lost lives and the largest deficit in our history. If you lost a son in Iraq, would you be willing to chalk it up as a "political point?" Do you think impeachment is intended only for mass murderers? Even if this is your standard, there are many willing to include Bush in the category.

You get a majority of parents of our dead servicemen to agree that Bush is a noble leader and I'll go along with them. Until then, I want some serious oversight and penalties for irresponsibility.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 23 2006, 08:05 PM) [snapback]337158[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 23 2006, 09:45 PM) [snapback]337195[/snapback]</div>

So, was Clinton's “little fun†lying to a Grand Jury multiple times? :huh: THAT is why he was impeached, not because he dropped trow and Monica just so happened to be under the desk.

“On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: . . .â€
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vo...e_article1.html

. . . not one of the four following charges says “because he received a blowjob . . .â€

If, as you say, receiving a blowjob in the Oval Office from a subordinate government employee is no big thing, WHY DID HE LIE ABOUT IT IN FRONT OF A GRAND JURY???? :huh:

If he would have just come out and said to the grand jury, “you know what, I did get a blowjob . . . and it was gooooooood,†END OF STORY! Not an impeachable offense.

If what you guys say is so righteous, why cover it with euphemisms? <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 23 2006, 05:47 PM) [snapback]337107[/snapback]</div>

The Dem's won't take back Congress.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 23 2006, 09:45 PM) [snapback]337195[/snapback]</div>

I guess one could say the same about Foley only he didn’t really get the fun part did he? Yet the hew and cry from the left raises the character of the Left’s hypocrisy to a new level. Remember the Congressional Page scandal involving Gerry Studds? He actually had sex with a 17 year old page and was censured by Congress. He never even apologized and stood with his back to the main body as the voting and censure took place. Not only that but he was given a Committee Chairmanship by the demoncratic party after all this took place! Foley writes some provocative internet messages to a Page and the hubris of the Left is clearly revealed by their response. BTW these three politicians should have lost their jobs. Only the Republicans had the class of character to do the right thing.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 23 2006, 09:45 PM) [snapback]337195[/snapback]</div>

It would take a majority of the relatives of our dead servicement, AND a majority of the relatives of the dead Iraqi civilians before I'd agree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 23 2006, 08:47 PM) [snapback]337107[/snapback]</div>

Hate to break up this feeding frenzy...

What would the charges be?

And then we can get into the politcs of it...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Oct 23 2006, 09:26 PM) [snapback]337145[/snapback]</div>

If you get the chance, you go right ahead and lie to a grand jury and then we can all see how funny everyone thinks that is.

Clinton committed a felony and didn't do time for it.

Can anyone name one law that Bush has broken?

<this is where you spout off all of your political differences with him that aren't breaking the law, just not agreeing with you>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 24 2006, 09:47 AM) [snapback]337277[/snapback]</div>

Amazing how hate destroys and builds at the same time.

 

Should Dems impeach junior? It depends on the outcome of the election. If they win both houses, then no impeachment, they should get on with the country's business since they will be in a position of power. If they only win one house and are still irrelevent then yes, they should impeach/fire/make life unbearable to all who played junior's game. I agree with Daniel. Dems can't continue to turn the other cheek when the bully would never return the 'favor'. It would be foolish and asking for a smackdown.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 24 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]337364[/snapback]</div>

Again, what will be the charges? What are his high crimes and misdemeanors?

And if the Dems went after Bush, do you not think it would empower the Republican base for '08?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 24 2006, 12:37 AM) [snapback]337221[/snapback]</div>

There you go again.

Nobody said Clinton deserves a Medal of Honor. "WHY DID HE LIE ABOUT IT IN FRONT OF A GRAND JURY???? ," you shout. Let me try to think of a reason..... How about....he was pretty embarrassed. I guess it made him feel mighty stupid, you think? Who, besides you, used the word "righteous?" What "euphemisms?" No euphemisms for you: you love to use the words, over and over.

Is this the kind of question a Grand Jury should be wasting its time asking? "Tell us, Mr. President. What were you doing between the hour of 4:23 to 4:27 last August 7th? What do you mean, "Not much," Mr. President? Define "much" for us." Whew!

Is this the kind of thing that the government should come to a halt about? Clinton was impeached (accused) but not convicted so it was all, in the end, a great waste of time, wasn't it? The jury, the Senate, gave him a pass. Legally then, he is not guilty of anything. But was he a jerk and all-around low-life? You bet! Was democracy served by this circus, on both sides? I guess you think so. Nobody impeached, much less convicted, previous presidents for lies much more serious than Clinton's. Reagan and Johnson come to mind. (Nixon was sui generis.)

Now show the same righteous indignation about Bush II and his endless, certified, documented and recorded stream of lies that has resulted in thousands dead and trillions wasted. But wait...he didn't say them to a Grand Jury, under oath, with penalties attached, did he? His pocket-congress never held his feet to the fire. He just told his lies to that great bunch of schmucks, the American people. No crime, no penalty. Others who were a bit sloppy about their reporting procedures are revising their future vacation plans.

I'm not much in favor of impeachment for Bush. I'd just make him accountable for what he says and does. But the more I see of this Clinton moral-equivalence presented here, the more I understand the hate-fest the Republicans delighted in putting us through back then. Maybe revenge would be sweet, you think? This is where this stuff leads. Keep pushing it.