If the dems retake control of congress...

[ZeGermans]

Now, in most leftist's eyes, Bush has done more illegal things than Clinton ever did. We pretty much all know that the main reason Clinton was impeached was out of spite more than actual crimes. I'm wondering if the democrats have the balls to try to do the same thing if they take control again. Any thoughts?

 

[Red Dawn]

Nah.

 

[lozina]

Diebold

 

[alchemize]

Well - there actually was pretty hard evidence (blue dress) of a crime being committed by Clinton (perjury under oath), whereas Bush there is no hard evidence of crimes or sworn statements, basically they'd have to try him on "conspiracy" which is a bitch of a conviction to get without hard evidence (i.e. a recording of him telling Rummy "Fake the evidence"). So I'd actually say the reverse is true - Bush would be an impeachment based on spite while Clinton was based on an actual crime.

The "severity" of the crime is a different story all together obviously - conspiracy to go to war. Both were/would be totally political.

 

[ZeGermans]

What's a diebold? I'm just curious if it's a possibility. It would seem that the left have a lot of pent-up rage against the right majority; if they recieved their majority again, how far would they go?

 

[ZeGermans]

I wasn't so much talking about the war in iraq. I was thinking that his domestic spying programs would catch up with him, seeing as their legal reasoning is flawed as hell, and they're making up the rules as they go along.

 

[alchemize]

Oh - well that one would be extremely tough also, it'd basically go to the supreme court like all exercise of "executive power" cases seem to...since from my limited knowledge he's been operating under a "gray area" of the law.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Now, in most leftist's eyes, Bush has done more illegal things than Clinton ever did. We pretty much all know that the main reason Clinton was impeached was out of spite more than actual crimes. I'm wondering if the democrats have the balls to try to do the same thing if they take control again. Any thoughts?

Clinton did illegal things? you won't find anyone agreeing with you here on that. 😕

 

[Todd33]

I'm guessing taking money allocated for Afghanistan and sending it to Iraq before Congressional appropriation is also illegal.

 

[Meuge]

I'm thinking that not obeying the laws that Congress carries out is a crime too.

Cause if it's not, next time I want to steal, I'll file a signed statement saying that while I respect that right of COngress to make new laws, I reserve for myself the right to refuse to obey them, for the security of the state.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
What's a diebold? I'm just curious if it's a possibility. It would seem that the left have a lot of pent-up rage against the right majority; if they recieved their majority again, how far would they go?

Diebold is the maker of voting machines which, in many states, do not have a paper trail or back up, and have been shown time and again to be easy to manipulate without leaving any trace. Many people believe that manipulation of these machines is the main reason Bush got elected and re-elected. Specially since the owner of diebold stated he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
What's a diebold? I'm just curious if it's a possibility. It would seem that the left have a lot of pent-up rage against the right majority; if they recieved their majority again, how far would they go?

Diebold is the maker of voting machines which, in many states, do not have a paper trail or back up, and have been shown time and again to be easy to manipulate without leaving any trace. Many people believe that manipulation of these machines is the main reason Bush got elected and re-elected. Specially since the owner of diebold stated he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"

I don't disbelieve you, but please link that quote

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
What's a diebold? I'm just curious if it's a possibility. It would seem that the left have a lot of pent-up rage against the right majority; if they recieved their majority again, how far would they go?

Diebold is the maker of voting machines which, in many states, do not have a paper trail or back up, and have been shown time and again to be easy to manipulate without leaving any trace. Many people believe that manipulation of these machines is the main reason Bush got elected and re-elected. Specially since the owner of diebold stated he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"

I don't disbelieve you, but please link that quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_O'Dell

This is really old news now. Hit up black box voting for all info related to fair elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Repost x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

And the answer is no. They won't impeach him.

They will probably open investigation after investigation to cripple the administration, issuing subpoena after subpoena to keep administration officials hopping from one committee meeting to another but they won't impeach him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Repost x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

And the answer is no. They won't impeach him.

They will probably open investigation after investigation to cripple the administration, issuing subpoena after subpoena to keep administration officials hopping from one committee meeting to another but they won't impeach him.

Which is why they are not worth a vote.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
...since from my limited knowledge he's been operating under a "gray area" of the law.

There's nothing "gray" about his crimes. We can skip the misdemeanors and jump directly to the "high crimes."

Treason -- I don't know what else you'd call outing a covert CIA agent for political gamesmanship.

Conspiracy -- 923 18 U.S.C. § 371 -- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i[/i]]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.

What else would you call the Bushwhackos mechanations that took us to a war based entirely on lies that has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will still be paying?

Abuse of Process, Malicious Procecution and various other mailcious abuses under color of authority -- I think ignoring and shredding the Constitution with unconstitutional warrantless spying on American citizens constitutes the elements of several felonies.

I could probably find more, but does it really matter? Bush is both the dumbest and the most evil person to hold the office of President in my lifetime. That goes back to FDR. :|

JAIL TO THE THIEF!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Repost x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

And the answer is no. They won't impeach him.

They will probably open investigation after investigation to cripple the administration, issuing subpoena after subpoena to keep administration officials hopping from one committee meeting to another but they won't impeach him.

Which is why they are not worth a vote.

That depends on what your goal is. I've said it a million times... politics is a team sport. It's not about right or wrong, it's about winning.

For the Ds the best thing they could do would be to virtually shut down the administration with endless investigations. The side effect of these investigations would be to steal the spotlight and paint the entire Republican party as thoroughly corrupt, then carry that momentum into '08 to get a more solid hold on congress and take back the white house.

Impeachment gets them nothing and ends the issue. They need the issue to promote their cause. What's more, when the Rs tried it, it actually hurt them. An impeachment without a conviction would look like sour grapes/petty revenge for Clinton. That's a big risk to take considering the make up of the senate.

Nope... A few of the more liberal members of the house might try to get things started (and the party might let them keep that bubbling in the background) but the general party line would certainly be to stay away from impeachment.

 

[tommywishbone]

No chance. None. Zero.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Oh - well that one would be extremely tough also, it'd basically go to the supreme court like all exercise of "executive power" cases seem to...since from my limited knowledge he's been operating under a "gray area" of the law.

There no grey area of the law with regards to this great pillar of the Bill of Rights. Our right to live free of tyranny. To be secure in our homes and everywhere else. If the Government has ANY issue to take up with us, there's a due process they must follow.

This nonsense that the President can use executive power to legally override the 4th Amendment of our Bill of Rights is part of the Bush apologists argument that he is above the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush swore an oath to uphold the USA Constitution. He can be impeached for violating that oath.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=godda...&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/bush_obscure_doctrine_extend_power.htm

The Bush regime's main concern with a Dem takover of the House of Representatives is the shift in power that creates that moves the White House away from keeping a tight lid on a runaway Executive Branch. We might just start seeing Congress swing the balance of Power back towards equilibrium again.

We have a rogue President that has tipped the scales of Constitutional checks and balances far into his favor. Case in point. The NAFTA Superhighway and Bush's push towards the unification of Mexico the USA and Canada without Congressional debate or oversight. Bush just does it. That's not the way our Republic is supposed to function.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: alchemize
Oh - well that one would be extremely tough also, it'd basically go to the supreme court like all exercise of "executive power" cases seem to...since from my limited knowledge he's been operating under a "gray area" of the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush swore an oath to uphold the USA Constitution. He can be impeached for violating that oath.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=godda...&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Ummm... Yeah...

I didn't hit the quote button fast enough. You do realize that you're using an unsourced quote from a blog (that was later reposted throughout the blogosphere with three imaginary and unnamed GOP congress persons added later as claimed sources) to insuinate that Bush said the constitution was a "goddamn piece of paper", right?

Basically you're advocating impeachment based on an urban legend.

 

[straightalker]

http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm

I have complete peace with anyone who honestly says they are not an expert on the subject of politics and news. I'm not an expert either. Truth be told. We're all learning.

A Dem takover of Congress can break the back of the Neocon's fascist grip on power. By creating divisions and causing debate over issues that previously were just getting rubber-stamped by a Republican House and Senate.

It's not a guarantee that the Dems would try to impeach Bush if they regain control, just much more likely.

I'm a Constitionalist. But i see a Dem takeover of Congress as a good way to get the pot stirred and the "crazzies" eventually driven out of the Executive Branch. Most likely if Bush was being Impeached it would be Cheney on the line as well.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: straightalker
...

Ummm... Yeah...

I didn't hit the quote button fast enough. You do realize that you're using an unsourced quote from a blog (that was later reposted throughout the blogosphere with three imaginary and unnamed GOP congress persons added later as claimed sources) to insuinate that Bush said the constitution was a "goddamn piece of paper", right?

Basically you're advocating impeachment based on an urban legend.

Glad you think so. Now, take on my post. Treason, conspiracy as defined under 923 18 U.S.C. § 371 (active link provided), abuse of process and malicious prosecution are NOT urban legends; they are U.S. laws that Bush has violated many times over.

JAIL TO THE THIEF! :|

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: straightalker
http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm

I have complete peace with anyone who honestly says they are not an expert on the subject of politics and news. I'm not an expert either. Truth be told. We're all learning.

A Dem takover of Congress can break the back of the Neocon's fascist grip on power. By creating divisions and causing debate over issues that previously were just getting rubber-stamped by a Republican House and Senate.

It's not a guarantee that the Dems would try to impeach Bush if they regain control, just much more likely.

I'm a Constitionalist. But i see a Dem takeover of Congress as a good way to get the pot stirred and the "crazzies" eventually driven out of the Executive Branch. Most likely if Bush was being Impeached it would be Cheney on the line as well.

I don't think you read my last post.

You are using a line from a BLOG that is unsourced and unverified. You should rethink your use of it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nah.

ditto.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Fine...

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize
...since from my limited knowledge he's been operating under a "gray area" of the law.

There's nothing "gray" about his crimes. We can skip the misdemeanors and jump directly to the "high crimes."

Treason -- I don't know what else you'd call outing a covert CIA agent for political gamesmanship.

Conspiracy -- 923 18 U.S.C. § 371 -- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i[/i]]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.

What else would you call the Bushwhackos mechanations that took us to a war based entirely on lies that has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will still be paying?

Abuse of Process, Malicious Procecution and various other mailcious abuses under color of authority -- I think ignoring and shredding the Constitution with unconstitutional warrantless spying on American citizens constitutes the elements of several felonies.

I could probably find more, but does it really matter? Bush is both the dumbest and the most evil person to hold the office of President in my lifetime. That goes back to FDR. :|

JAIL TO THE THIEF!

Your charge of treason involves an incident that hasn't yielded a single indictment (related to the "crime" in question), much less a conviction. Believing something to be true doesn't make it so.

The rest is a long list of accusations that haven't really gone anywhere outside the liberal blogosphere.