National Boycott To Impeach for Peace

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: rockyct
and how exactly is Dick Cheney being President going to solve the Iraq situation...

During the early Nixon administration, there were bumper stickers saying, Get Spiro first!

The same logic applies. Impeach Cheney, first, or charge them together.

 

[db]

Definitely!

 

[Arcex]

Impeaching Cheney should be even easier, Halliburton.

Bush would be slightly harder, but looking at the facts of his presidency would be enough.

The problem isn't proving inappropriate actions, the problem is getting the motion to pass, and if it should be done at all. Would this end up distracting us from fixing the real problems in this country? That's the big question in my mind.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Impeaching Cheney should be even easier, Halliburton.

Bush would be slightly harder, but looking at the facts of his presidency would be enough.

The problem isn't proving inappropriate actions, the problem is getting the motion to pass, and if it should be done at all. Would this end up distracting us from fixing the real problems in this country? That's the big question in my mind.

Even if he was impeached, a conviction could never be obtained prior to 2008 (when their terms expire) given the standings in Congress.

If the Democrats don't focus on actually winning the next election instead of fighting already lost battles they are going to hand the Republicans the presidency in 08.

 

[db]

Citizens are opening their eyes, in spite of the Administration's use of the best PR money can buy.

"You can't fool all the people all the time".

 

[db]

Originally posted by: K1052

If the Democrats don't focus on actually winning the next election instead of fighting already lost battles they are going to hand the Republicans the presidency in 08.

Every time there has been an impeachment, the President's party lost the next presidential election.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: db

[

If the Democrats don't focus on actually winning the next election instead of fighting already lost battles they are going to hand the Republicans the presidency in 08.

Every time there has been an impeachment, the party in power lost the next presidential election.

Which has happened twice out of 43 officeholders, not quite what I call a defintive statistic.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: db

[

If the Democrats don't focus on actually winning the next election instead of fighting already lost battles they are going to hand the Republicans the presidency in 08.

Every time there has been an impeachment, the party in power lost the next presidential election.

Which has happened twice out of 43 officeholders, not quite what I call a defintive statistic.

Agreed. Plus, Clinton wasn't found guilty, and Gore should have (and could have) fought harder for the win, he basically abdicated.

Either way, like I said earlier, although there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, and absolutely no question in my mind they are guilty, it would do more damage than good. As long as Congress can put Bush on a leash and keep him from doing more damage then we are fine till election time, and as long as Hillary doesn't screw things up by forcing the sheeple to vote for any male Republican (the only way this country will elect a female president is if both candidates are female) we should be ok.

There honestly isn't a decent Democratic candidate currently, Obama is too new, Hillary is too... I'm not sure what but she's definitely too something, Gore is too Gore. I'd vote for Kerry again but not with any real enthusiasm.

Jesse Ventura maybe? Even better than a Democrat.

 

[db]

Originally posted by: K1052


Which has happened twice out of 43 officeholders, not quite what I call a defintive statistic.

43? You must be talking about impeaching judges, etc, which is to say you are trying to misrepresent the issue of impeaching a president, which is the discussion.

This is about Presidents.

Out of 3 presidents who have been impeached, or were certain to be impeached (A. Johnson, Clinton, Nixon) the next President to be elected was from the opposing party.

Thats 100%, 3 for 3.

Pretty good odds, and my point exactly.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: db

[

If the Democrats don't focus on actually winning the next election instead of fighting already lost battles they are going to hand the Republicans the presidency in 08.

Every time there has been an impeachment, the party in power lost the next presidential election.

Which has happened twice out of 43 officeholders, not quite what I call a defintive statistic.

Agreed. Plus, Clinton wasn't found guilty, and Gore should have (and could have) fought harder for the win, he basically abdicated.

Either way, like I said earlier, although there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, and absolutely no question in my mind they are guilty, it would do more damage than good. As long as Congress can put Bush on a leash and keep him from doing more damage then we are fine till election time, and as long as Hillary doesn't screw things up by forcing the sheeple to vote for any male Republican (the only way this country will elect a female president is if both candidates are female) we should be ok.

There honestly isn't a decent Democratic candidate currently, Obama is too new, Hillary is too... I'm not sure what but she's definitely too something, Gore is too Gore. I'd vote for Kerry again but not with any real enthusiasm.

Jesse Ventura maybe? Even better than a Democrat.

Dont mean to derail the topic, but you are wrong. Impeachment = conviction. 67 senetors, or 2/3 majority, voted to impeach. Guilt as charged.

Anyway.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: db

Originally posted by: K1052


Which has happened twice out of 43 officeholders, not quite what I call a defintive statistic.

43? You must be talking about impeaching judges, etc, which is to say you are trying to misrepresent the issue of impeaching a president, which is the discussion.

This is about Presidents.

Out of 3 presidents who have been impeached, or were certain to be impeached (A. Johnson, Clinton, Nixon) the next President to be elected was from the opposing party.

Thats 100%, 3 for 3.

Pretty good odds, and my point exactly.

Two ACTUALLY impeached presidents out of 43. Given the Republican party's fall from favor over the last few years that the presidency is at risk isn't exactly a huge leap of insight. However the voters who want to vote Democratic look to be splintering a number of ways so far because of the candidates offered.

You won't even get this Congress to pass the articles of impeachment (let alone a conviction) in the first place so the whole discussion is moot anyway.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: db

[

If the Democrats don't focus on actually winning the next election instead of fighting already lost battles they are going to hand the Republicans the presidency in 08.

Every time there has been an impeachment, the party in power lost the next presidential election.

Which has happened twice out of 43 officeholders, not quite what I call a defintive statistic.

Agreed. Plus, Clinton wasn't found guilty, and Gore should have (and could have) fought harder for the win, he basically abdicated.

Either way, like I said earlier, although there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, and absolutely no question in my mind they are guilty, it would do more damage than good. As long as Congress can put Bush on a leash and keep him from doing more damage then we are fine till election time, and as long as Hillary doesn't screw things up by forcing the sheeple to vote for any male Republican (the only way this country will elect a female president is if both candidates are female) we should be ok.

There honestly isn't a decent Democratic candidate currently, Obama is too new, Hillary is too... I'm not sure what but she's definitely too something, Gore is too Gore. I'd vote for Kerry again but not with any real enthusiasm.

Jesse Ventura maybe? Even better than a Democrat.

Dont mean to derail the topic, but you are wrong. Impeachment = conviction. 67 senetors, or 2/3 majority, voted to impeach. Guilt as charged.

Anyway.

No, impeachment is the process that can lead to a conviction. A President can be impeached by a simple majority in both houses, 2/3s majority is required to convict.

 

[Arcex]

K1052 beat me to it, he is correct. Impeachment is just the legal statement of charges, the equivalent of an indictment (phrasing admittedly stolen from Wikipedia). Clinton was aquitted by the Senate.

*edited because I can't read. I'm really off my game today.*

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: db

[

If the Democrats don't focus on actually winning the next election instead of fighting already lost battles they are going to hand the Republicans the presidency in 08.

Every time there has been an impeachment, the party in power lost the next presidential election.

Which has happened twice out of 43 officeholders, not quite what I call a defintive statistic.

Agreed. Plus, Clinton wasn't found guilty, and Gore should have (and could have) fought harder for the win, he basically abdicated.

Either way, like I said earlier, although there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, and absolutely no question in my mind they are guilty, it would do more damage than good. As long as Congress can put Bush on a leash and keep him from doing more damage then we are fine till election time, and as long as Hillary doesn't screw things up by forcing the sheeple to vote for any male Republican (the only way this country will elect a female president is if both candidates are female) we should be ok.

There honestly isn't a decent Democratic candidate currently, Obama is too new, Hillary is too... I'm not sure what but she's definitely too something, Gore is too Gore. I'd vote for Kerry again but not with any real enthusiasm.

Jesse Ventura maybe? Even better than a Democrat.

Dont mean to derail the topic, but you are wrong. Impeachment = conviction. 67 senetors, or 2/3 majority, voted to impeach. Guilt as charged.

Anyway.

No, Impeachment is basically the house voting to put him on trial. The Senate has the final verdict.

 

[blackangst1]

eh, ok I said it wrong. House impeached on 4 articles, and the Senate aquited. Thats what I meant Didnt mean to pull a Dave hehe

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: db
In support of impeaching Bush and Cheney, show support by not shopping at corporate stores (just mom & pop stores), or by putting off major purchases.
Link

"People of conscience, let's send a message to corporate America and Congress to end the war in Iraq and move forward immediately on the impeachment of Bush and Cheney."

Well that leaves out 52% of the Country.

Including yourself, Dave.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ummm we can?t congress to agree on a resolution stating it does not like the surge, but you expect them to turn around and impeach Bush AND Cheney and put Pelosi in charge?

Can you imagine the political mess that would result if that was even tried?
The left has now decided that we are going to ignore the entire basis on which our government is founded on and throw that out the window because a few people don?t like the policies of the President?
Trying to impeach Bush without first determining that he broke a law or committed some otherwise impeachable offense would be opening a huge can of worms.
Next time we have a Democrat President who makes a mistake like bombing an aspirin factory because he was told it was a chemical weapons plant do we then impeach them for ?lying to the American people??

So far this whole impeach Bush thing is just political wishful thinking by those who don?t like Bush. If they find a legitimate impeachable offense then we can talk about boycotts and other stupid ideas.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
eh, ok I said it wrong. House impeached on 4 articles, and the Senate aquited. Thats what I meant Didnt mean to pull a Dave hehe

The Senate didn't aquit him though, he was censured

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: blackangst1
eh, ok I said it wrong. House impeached on 4 articles, and the Senate aquited. Thats what I meant Didnt mean to pull a Dave hehe

The Senate didn't aquit him though, he was censured

Who was censured?????!!!!

There is NO such thing as CENSURED in America!!
It is an idea we stole/borrowed from Europe where they censure someone if they don?t like what they did.
But it is not ANYWHERE in our constitution. They might as well pass a resolution that puts the President in ?time out? since that has as much legal meaning as any censure idea.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: blackangst1
eh, ok I said it wrong. House impeached on 4 articles, and the Senate aquited. Thats what I meant Didnt mean to pull a Dave hehe

The Senate didn't aquit him though, he was censured

Clinton was not censured:

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228?206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221?212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed?a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205?229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148?285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.

On a personal note I could care less who Clinton was getting it on with, the only thing I can fault him for is bad taste.

At least Kennedy had some taste.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm we can?t congress to agree on a resolution stating it does not like the surge, but you expect them to turn around and impeach Bush AND Cheney and put Pelosi in charge?

Can you imagine the political mess that would result if that was even tried?

Right now, we have an adminstration that should be tried for the murder of every American who has died in their war of lies in Iraq and multilple other felonies for their wholesale shredding of the Constitutional rights of every American citizen.

Right now, we have an administration that has been marked from day one with gross incompetence in almost every area of their responsibility from disaster management to homeland security to oversight. Even if you're among the dwindling minority who still howl at the moon that the war in Iraq was justified in any way, the administration's planning and execution of it has been piss poor with tragic results for the thousands of Americans killed and the tens of thousands wounded in that war.

Can you imagine a worse mess than we have now?

The left has now decided... blah, blah, blah...

OMGWTFBBQ. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! IT'S THE DREADED "LEFT!" Beware of desperate falling, failing label hangers. :shocked:

Trying to impeach Bush without first determining that he broke a law or committed some otherwise impeachable offense would be opening a huge can of worms.

What makes you so certain Bush hasn't committed impeachable offenses? A lot of people believe otherwise, many with a lot more legal expertise than you, including Constitutional scholars and some genuinely honest conservatives.

You can skip the list of Federal and state legislators and legislatures, media critics, activist groups and public opinion sources, and jump to the list of those with real expertise in the field who disagree with your feeble understanding:

Viewpoints of some legal and academic professionals

• John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, and convicted to serve four months for of obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal, although his testimony contributed to President Nixon's downfall, was an early advocate of a Bush impeachment, believing that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to get the United States into a war with Iraq and that this is an impeachable crime. In a talk before Writers Bloc in Beverly Hills, CA on December 18, 2005, Dean "remarked that Bush is the first President to ever willingly admit to an impeachable offense." (referring to the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy)
  
• Ramsey Clark, United States Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, and lawyer for Saddam Hussein, has set up a website, VoteToImpeach, in which he lists some of the reasons he believes Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be impeached and had included ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
  
• Constitutional Law Professor Francis Boyle has written six draft articles of impeachment against Bush.
  
• Scholars Bruce Fein (constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration) and Norm Ornstein (scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) argued on the December 19, 2005 Diane Rehm show that, should Bush continue the controversial program (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him. Said Fein, "On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want?I don?t need to consult any other branches?that is an impeachable offense. It?s more dangerous than Clinton?s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that ? would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant." Said Ornstein, "I think if we?re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."
  
• Constitutional Lawyer John Bonifaz has written a book on the case for impeaching Bush, is a co-founder of After Downing Street, and has spoken regularly in favor of impeachment.
  
• Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance, spoke about Bush's admission that he authorized warrantless wiretaps, in an interview for an article, ?Bush?s Impeachable Offense? by Michelle Goldberg, published December 22, 2005 on Salon.com. "The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment." Turley testified against Clinton in that impeachment hearing and added "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."
  
• Attorney Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights and journalist Dave Lindorff published a book in May 2006 entitled, The Case for Impeachment : The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (ISBN 0-312-36016-9). The rationales they list for impeachment include "lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust war; allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq; authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists?a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law; stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights?holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers; [and] failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders."

• 
  The article includes a section on the rationales for impeachment.
  

  Rationales for impeachment
  
  Proponents of impeaching President George W. Bush assert that one or more of his actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.
  
  This section collates a list of pro-impeachment advocates' rationales as suggested by commentators, legal analysts, members of the Democratic Party, the Center for Constitutional Rights[84] and others. However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Therefore, this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

  Read the article for further information about these issues:
  
  NSA warrantless surveillance
  
  2003 invasion of Iraq
  • Constitutionality of invasion
    Justification for invasion
    U.N. Charter
  Violations of the Geneva Conventions
  • Unlawful combatant status
    Extraordinary rendition
    Treatment of detainees
  Leaking of classified information
  • Possible involvement in the CIA leak
    Declassifying for political purposes
    
    (Before you try to deny it, check the current transcripts from Libby's ongoing trial about the evidence presented regarding actions by Cheney and others within the Whitehouse.)
  Hurricane Katrina
  • (incompetence and failures)
  Abuse of power
  

  Originally posted by: ProfJohn[/i]
  Next time we have a Democrat President who makes a mistake like bombing an aspirin factory because he was told it was a chemical weapons plant do we then impeach them for ?lying to the American people??

  OMGWTFBBQ. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! It's the dreaded "CLINTON DID IT" straw man, again, and again, and again.... :roll:
  
  If Clinton got it wrong and ordered the bombing of one chemical plant, then naturally, it follows that it's OK for Bush to start years of war that have killed thousands of Americans, cost trillions of dollars that could have been used to provide for the genuine security of the nation, along with the incidental welfare and best interests of our citizens, and squandered and depleted our military resources to the point where we will be severly hampered for any justifiable conflict. And of course, it's all the more OK that Bush LIED about every so-called "reason" he gave Congress and the American people for his illegal war and, to this day, continues to spew the same bullsh8.
  

  So far this whole impeach Bush thing is just political wishful thinking by those who don?t like Bush. If they find a legitimate impeachable offense then we can talk about boycotts and other stupid ideas.

  Stupid is a word better suited to describing almost everything you post on any subject. If you really believe the crap you spew, you're either a fool, or you're an active participant in their grand cabal. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: rockyct

and how exactly is Dick Cheney being President going to solve the Iraq situation...

Which is of course reason #1 against impeachment.


Harvey, perhaps you remember a post I made some months ago, detailing why Bush is guilty of treason? I think the highlight was that his wiretapping thing violated the 4th Amendment, for all citizens to be secure in their posessions from unreasonable searches. No judge gave a search warrant, so the searching of our electronic effects is illegal. Bush and friends had to know this, but went ahead anyway. This violated the oath that Bush took when he was sworn in as our President. He is bound by that oath to abide by, uphold, and protect the US Constitution. He instead seems to view it as an inconvenient truth, just something in his way.

From TFD.com:
treason
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Seems he violated an oath he took, and used his power against his country.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: blackangst1
eh, ok I said it wrong. House impeached on 4 articles, and the Senate aquited. Thats what I meant Didnt mean to pull a Dave hehe

The Senate didn't aquit him though, he was censured

Clinton was not censured:

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228?206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221?212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed?a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205?229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148?285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.

On a personal note I could care less who Clinton was getting it on with, the only thing I can fault him for is bad taste.

At least Kennedy had some taste.

I agree; however, he wasnt impeached for anything having to do even remotely for sex. But lets not open that can of worms again. Afterall. although getting blown in the White House may show lack of respect or charactor, it's not illegal.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
What makes you so certain Bush hasn't committed impeachable offenses? A lot of people believe otherwise, many with a lot more legal expertise than you, including Constitutional scholars and some genuinely honest conservatives.

Should I dig up a list of people against impeachment?

Or how about I dig up a list of people who claimed Clinton should have been impeached?
Would either of these make a difference?
When you find something that the vast majority of Americans think is worthy of removing Bush from office over let me know.

Otherwise this is just a political ploy, and a dangerous one. Last thing we need is the party out of power to go around looking for reasons to impeach the President over anything he/she does that they don?t agree with.

 

[piasabird]

First you have to know what an impeachable offense is.

If we agree that any politician that lies should be impeached then we can probably just get rid of all of them.