Impeachment

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Dec 21 2006, 04:42 PM) [snapback]365422[/snapback]</div>

Actually, Nancy Pelosi has said she won't pursue impeachment. Other democrats say otherwise. This independent says that it would be as much of a waste of time as it was the last time. Unfortunately being an incompetent idiot is not an impeachable offense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Dec 21 2006, 07:00 PM) [snapback]365433[/snapback]</div>

I understand it takes 2/3s of the Senate to impeach a President.Good Luck with that.
A Presidential censure would be more realistic and would'nt take much time .
I think those who voted for Bush (and spoiler Nader) are also guilty of being incompetent idiots.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Dec 21 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]365422[/snapback]</div>

Getting a blowjob???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 21 2006, 08:29 PM) [snapback]365481[/snapback]</div>

Lying under oath (/obstruction).

Clinton and Martha Stewart had the same problem: they both did nothing legally wrong and decided to cover it up during an investigation and got busted for it. And they got what they deserved; somebody knows you got a BJ, just accept it and say you're sorry. Somebody finds out you traded some stock and wanted to know if it was you receiving tips (it wasn't) just say so.

 

If bush were tied up with impeachment, at least he wouldn't have as much time to f things up even more.

 

I think it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate for a president to be convicted under impeachment. Thus, assuming even a moderate degree of party loyalty, the shrub is safe. I'd like to see him locked in a cell and forced to read a book all the way through before he could be released. He'd be there for life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 21 2006, 09:48 PM) [snapback]365502[/snapback]</div>

Hey! That's not fair! I do believe he finished My Little Pony.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Dec 21 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]365422[/snapback]</div>

Look at it from a legal perspective. There is a burden of proof that cannot be met in this case. It isn't enough to simply say that he said there would be WMDs and there weren't, you would have to show that he intentionally lied in order to obtain personal gain, and be able to prove it to the Senate. And then you have to deal with all the Democrats who supported the view that there were WMDs who declaim responsibility, and say that President Bush "fooled them". It boggles the mind that someone they consider an imbecile and almost sub human could be so cunningly clever as to fool all of them.

"tit for tat" politics only angers the electorate. The Democrats, if they pursue such a quest, will surely meet the same fate the Republicans met when they impeached President Clinton for lying under oath to a federal grand jury (an offense for which he was also disbarred). President Clinton committed an actual crime, and yet most of us don't believe that rose to the level that deserved impeachment (I was astounded that the Republicans thought it worth their time, and thought it horribly short sighted). Had the Republicans been true to their core beliefs, they would have used the occasion to pursue tort reform, and prevent a sitting President from ever being subject to civil lawsuits while in office, especially for a "crime" like sexual harassment.

If the Democrats want to impeach President Bush, they need to have someone sue him in civil court for something, and then catch President Bush in a lie or a cover-up. In this country, we don't impeach someone because they were wrong.

 

The impeachable offense would be lying to the Senate: Giving the Senate information that he knew was wrong because his own intelligence services said there were no WMDs, and he pressured them into changing their report, and then gave that to the Senate.

However, as I said above, he would be acquitted because the vote would not be based on the facts of the case, it would be based on party affiliation, and with 52 votes, the Democrats are nowhere near 2/3.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 22 2006, 12:08 AM) [snapback]365547[/snapback]</div>

How hard could this be?

Just ask him if he's a moron. He'll lie and say no. Then he can be impeached.

The question is as appropriate as asking a President about his sex life. And if Clinton can be impeached for lieing about sex, Bush can be impeached for lieing about being an idiot. It shouldn't be hard for any lawyer to get the guy to talk gibberish. The Press do it all the time.

The real question isn't are there enough votes. It's why bother wasting the time. His term is almost over, the damage is done. Not much point now. Unless it looks like he's going to f*¢k up even further. Then it would be preventable measures.

"I think those who voted for Bush (and spoiler Nader) are also guilty of being incompetent idiots."

Hear, hear. However I think I'll have to be content with screaming TOLD YOU SO at every opportunity.

And offer them a big cup.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 21 2006, 09:21 PM) [snapback]365551[/snapback]</div>

How about those whose votes didn't count because they lived in states where the electoral college vote was assured one way or the other? I lived in North Dakota, which was so heavily pro-Bush that none of the candidates on either side gave it a second thought. The electoral college means that only the swing voters in a few states make any difference to the outcome of a presidential election.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 22 2006, 12:08 AM) [snapback]365547[/snapback]</div>

Thank you very much - I need the entertainment. Just think, a guy like Bush beat TWO Democratic nominees back to back. I wonder how big the margin is going to be in '08 when the Repubs have a person who can actually walk and talk in public. Go Barak Hussein Obama and Hillary - run guys - PLEASE - I need the entertainment to continue and the economy needs that half a billion you guys are going to waste - almost as profitable and the oil we are getting from Iraq :lol:

algore and d-student if you are not smart you get stuck in Iraq kerry were almost too much to bear - i have not stopped laughing yet. hey, at least kerry won his home state :lol: Run John Run.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 21 2006, 09:21 PM) [snapback]365551[/snapback]</div>

I agree. Can we now repeal the stupid laws that forced President Clinton to appear before a grand jury and answer personal questions about his sex life? Please? Before any more men are harmed?

As to whether or not President Bush saying he is not a moron would be an impeachable offense, I do find it interesting that liberals today are advocating what amounts to a kangaroo court in dealing with people they disagree with.

Dr. Berman and I agree: this is very entertaining. Please push forward with 2 years of Congressional stalemate, endless hearings on various committees to try and get political dirt on your opponents, and see how the electorate reacts in 2008.

Or see why Obama is getting such a bump in the polls. People are responding to him ... but why?

 

It's been a while since I looked up impeachment rules, but if memory serves me, gross negligence applies.

In the meantime, I can only hope enough of the electorate remembers that gwb is a REPUBLICAN, and punishes the responsible party at the polls for a couple of decades, or so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Dec 23 2006, 11:39 AM) [snapback]366073[/snapback]</div>

Nope, its "high crimes and misdemeanors":

But I encourage the Democrats to certainly try to impeach President Bush. I really don't see how they have any choice. After all the vindictive statements about him, how can they continue to allow him to serve?

They must also, as a first measure of business, defund the Iraq war. How can they continue to fund the war they claim they were bamboozled into accepting? If they simply continue to allow the President to conduct the war, and not cut off funding by January 31, 2006, they are not holding true to their promises. What does that say about the Democrat party? That they forget their promises once they are in power?

They do have a solution to it, don't they? Then they should implement it before January is over.

 

Question: If the president is impeached does the vice president go with him?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ken Cooper @ Dec 23 2006, 05:05 PM) [snapback]366100[/snapback]</div>

No.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ken Cooper @ Dec 23 2006, 05:05 PM) [snapback]366100[/snapback]</div>

No.

This is the primary reason NOT to impeach Bush. The only thing worse for this country than President Bush would be President Cheney.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ken Cooper @ Dec 23 2006, 05:05 PM) [snapback]366100[/snapback]</div>

No, but your punishment is to go bird hunting with the vice-president. :lol: