If the dems retake control of congress...

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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 charge of Treason couldn't begin to happen unless the Senate passed a bill of impeachment to that end. Without a majority, that's not going to happen, but it happens to be the topic of the thread.

Your lame claim regarding no indictment for any related "crime" ignores the fact that Libby's indictment for purjury follows from his lies while trying to cover up the crimes of which you speak. We'll learn more from whatever we learn from the Wilson's civil suit against many of the Bushwhackos.

If we're really lucky enough to get a Democratic majority in Congress, we'll learn a lot more when they start holding hearings and issue subpoenas for the information needed to make the case for whatever high crimes they can prove.

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

Clue -- Your dreadfully tired neocon denials are out of touch with the facts on this planet. Your reality check just bounced. 😛

 

[Stoneburner]

Probably censure.

And whoozerdaddy, why does that matter? Fitzpatrick said in no uncertain terms "there may have been a crime but the perjury prevented us from investigating properly".


Why do you think they make it a crime to lie during a criminal investigation? That's the most pathetic piece of republican spinning considering they impeached clinton for perjury. Obstruction of justice is not a serious crime now?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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.

Which is why the Democrats aren't worth a vote.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well... It seems you don't grasp the concept of Impeachment... It is the Grand Jury.. so in the Grand Jury room or in this case the impeachment room the House are still not the the finders of fact... they determine if there is reasonable cause to send the matter to the Senate...

But, I know you know this... so.. why not impeach.. there is obvious cause to see if there is reasonable cause to trial the President and the other covered members

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Probably censure.

And whoozerdaddy, why does that matter? Fitzpatrick said in no uncertain terms "there may have been a crime but the perjury prevented us from investigating properly".


Why do you think they make it a crime to lie during a criminal investigation? That's the most pathetic piece of republican spinning considering they impeached clinton for perjury. Obstruction of justice is not a serious crime now?

Let's not turn this into YAVPT (Yet Another Valerie Plame Thread)
Of course obstruction is a serious crime. But so far that's all we have. And to that end we are still awaiting a trial to convict or acquit on those charges. If there is an acquittal then what?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

Which is why the Democrats aren't worth a vote.

No one is worth a vote.

One problem not mentioned is that the Democrats are complicit as a whole with Bush and his agendas. That creates an associated blame on their part. The only way they can torch Bush is to tie themselves to the pyre. That's not going to happen.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Well... It seems you don't grasp the concept of Impeachment... It is the Grand Jury.. so in the Grand Jury room or in this case the impeachment room the House are still not the the finders of fact... they determine if there is reasonable cause to send the matter to the Senate...

But, I know you know this... so.. why not impeach.. there is obvious cause to see if there is reasonable cause to trial the President and the other covered members

I understand the impeachment process just fine.

If you scroll up a few posts you'll see why I believe the Ds won't impeach Bush.

Never mind... Here...

Originally posted by: 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.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Probably censure.

And whoozerdaddy, why does that matter? Fitzpatrick said in no uncertain terms "there may have been a crime but the perjury prevented us from investigating properly".


Why do you think they make it a crime to lie during a criminal investigation? That's the most pathetic piece of republican spinning considering they impeached clinton for perjury. Obstruction of justice is not a serious crime now?

Let's not turn this into YAVPT (Yet Another Valerie Plame Thread)
Of course obstruction is a serious crime. But so far that's all we have. And to that end we are still awaiting a trial to convict or acquit on those charges. If there is an acquittal then what?

So we can't presume w/o a trial? I say again, OJ was found NOT guilty yet it is not sheer lunacy to claim he was guilty regardless.

The basic problem is this... Scooter libby was clearly misbehaving, links point to bush and cheney. Even besides that, there should probably be censure based on the utterly unconsitutinal wiretapping program.


What Ill never understand is how the CONSITUTION, the law of laws in our land, can be violated freely to prevent other laws from being violated? THe founders implanted such a system for a reason, from their experiences. Bush probably does deserve removal for his utter disdain for the law, but censure's good enough for now.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Well... It seems you don't grasp the concept of Impeachment... It is the Grand Jury.. so in the Grand Jury room or in this case the impeachment room the House are still not the the finders of fact... they determine if there is reasonable cause to send the matter to the Senate...

But, I know you know this... so.. why not impeach.. there is obvious cause to see if there is reasonable cause to trial the President and the other covered members

I understand the impeachment process just fine.

If you scroll up a few posts you'll see why I believe the Ds won't impeach Bush.

Never mind... Here...

Originally posted by: 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.

What you wrote and did not include in this posting of yours was;

[/quote]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.[/quote]

So again I challenge you.... why not impeach? The basis for it is there and we are the people the Congress are nothing but our representives... clammer for it and they will comply or we get rid of them... like the paperboy who won't deliver the goods...

 

[alchemize]

I know this gets some of your feeble old hearts all a-pitter-patter and the saliva-a-running. Rather than mess up my new shirt with backspray, I'll just conclude that I've posted the reasons why I don't think he'll be impeached. Namely, not enough evidence, not enough law behind it.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I know this gets some of your feeble old hearts all a-pitter-patter and the saliva-a-running. Rather than mess up my new shirt with backspray, I'll just conclude that I've posted the reasons why I don't think he'll be impeached. Namely, not enough evidence, not enough law behind it.

Well, there is enough law to impeach him based on the wiretapping according to no less an authority than arlen specter, but I dont think its necessary. Just let bush and his doctrine and his cronyism die out their natural death now. Censure is more than warranted though.

 

[maluckey]

Nope, if the Republicans couldn't get a final vote for Impeachment against Clinton on an ACTUAL crime (100 Percent accurate documented perjury), then the Democrats will do any better with less (no crime accused as of yet).

Don?t vote for Democrats hoping that they will even try. They would be fools to do so as they will only embarrass themselves as did the Republicans
.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Nope, if the Republicans couldn't get a final vote for Impeachment against Clinton on an ACTUAL crime (100 Percent accurate documented perjury), then the Democrats will do any better with less (no crime accused as of yet).

Don?t vote for Democrats hoping that they will even try. They would be fools to do so as they will only embarrass themselves as did the Republicans
.

That is ridiculous. This idiot is a total disaster and needs to be removed because of that fact. The Republicans impeached Clinton because their wives are frigid and they were jealous. Keep it real.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I know this gets some of your feeble old hearts all a-pitter-patter and the saliva-a-running. Rather than mess up my new shirt with backspray, I'll just conclude that I've posted the reasons why I don't think he'll be impeached. Namely, not enough evidence, not enough law behind it.

I think there is ample evidence to meet the test to hold hearing to impeach.. there may not be enough to pass the test to actually impeach any of the players.... it is a rather low threshold to pass a bill of impeachment. IF the dems get the house they will hold hearings. They have to.... it is a political trump card.. they can allege all sorts of misdeeds in their 'speeches'...

 

[networkman]

I just wish for one election, we could have "None of the above" as a choice. Then, when "None of the above" wins by a landslide, perhaps both parties would wake up and really consider what the people of this nation expect of their elected representatives.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: networkman
I just wish for one election, we could have "None of the above" as a choice. Then, when "None of the above" wins by a landslide, perhaps both parties would wake up and really consider what the people of this nation expect of their elected representatives.

I'd rather use technology to "INSTRUCT" our representitives how to vote.. and they would be compelled to vote in that manner on all issues.. Their speeches would be directed to us in order to edify us on the issue before them...
The way it is just don't work.. say this do that..
If we don't "INSTRUCT" then we are compelled to shut up on the issue.. IF we do "INSTRUCT" and lose then we can go about trying to edify our neighbors who did not see it our way...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

So again I challenge you.... why not impeach? The basis for it is there and we are the people the Congress are nothing but our representives... clammer for it and they will comply or we get rid of them... like the paperboy who won't deliver the goods...

I never said they can't impeach... I just gave the reasons why they wouldn't.

In principle you are 100% correct. But like I said... politics is a team sport totally unrelated to right and wrong. It's about winning. If the Ds take back congress they can do whatever they want. And my bet is they will choose the course of action I laid out.

You are wrong about the "do what we say or you're gone" thing though. Incumbants have an amazing re-election rate... something like 98%. We all want to vote the bastards out but for some reason we never do.

 

[EagleKeeper]

IF

 

[wiin]

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!

I guess the fact libby was not indicted for leaking that woman's name means nutting to you. The fact that Novak said that he got the infromation about that woman from than man(that woman's husband in case you didn't know) himself also means nutting to you. man it must be extremely difficult to be you. Believe in the lies being poured down you throat because you hate President Bush or look at the facts? In your case, hatred for President Bush wins no matter what.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Simply won't happen...while "Bush is a war criminal" may be the rallying cry of the far left, as of yet there hasn't been much of a compelling case for those accusations.

As such, any attempt by the Democrats to impeach Bush could potentially come across as a witch hunt, and truly work against them come 2008...besides, if you think the far right is motivated now, wait until an impeachment attempt is made on Bush.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
besides, if you think the far right is motivated now, wait until an impeachment attempt is made on Bush.

They are always extremely motivated by paranoia so I couldn't fathom them being anymore motivated then they already are.

 

[Starbuck1975]

They are always extremely motivated by paranoia so I couldn't fathom them being anymore motivated then they already are.

The only difference between the far right and the far left is that the far right is able to better rally around common goals and objectives.

The far left isn't any less paranoid...they are just paranoid about a more diverse range of topics, and cannot seem to reach an agreement on a common cause to rally behind.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

They are always extremely motivated by paranoia so I couldn't fathom them being anymore motivated then they already are.

The only difference between the far right and the far left is that the far right is able to better rally around common goals and objectives.

The far left isn't any less paranoid...they are just paranoid about a more diverse range of topics, and cannot seem to reach an agreement on a common cause to rally behind.

True, that's why the Far Right is more dangerous.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: networkman
I just wish for one election, we could have "None of the above" as a choice. Then, when "None of the above" wins by a landslide, perhaps both parties would wake up and really consider what the people of this nation expect of their elected representatives.

"What the people of this nation expect" is exactly what their elected representatives are delivering - low taxes and rampant spending on 'free' federal benefits. Why do you think so many incumbents get returned to office? The enemy is our own selfish nature, and our political class is merely nothing more than a reflection and amplification of that.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Hopefully they'll spend their energies on getting supermajorities on a variety of issues. A slew of veto overrides would be a bigger FU to Bush - & *gasp* win for the American people - than any counterproductive impeachment.

Stem cell research ftw!