Rep. McKinney files bill to impeach Bush

Banzai042

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
489
0
0
Searched and didn't find any other topics on this, so here it is.

According to the Guerrilla news network and CNN Rep. McKinney has introduced a bill seekeing the impeachment of Bush.

I'm not entirely sure what she's trying to accomplish with this, given that the dems don't have control of the Senate until January. IIRC a bill won't roll over into the new senate. If it doesn't then this is at best a symbolic gesture that accomplishes nothing. Should be interesting to see what happens with this.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Yep same Gal---and poor old Cynthia didn't get re-elected so this is her last hurrah---for at least two more years.---but I hope she will be back---because she has gumption and flat out owned Rummy inside of two questions. But her act does not play well with her constituency---where they like em more well behaved and civil--but periodically the tree of liberty can be nurtured with fillet of punctured windbag.---and there is no ladylike way or polite way to deflate windbags---and don't stand too close when it happens because its messy.

Its a thankless job also---but if we had Cynthia unleashed earlier---would we need the years late and billions of dollars short Baker Hamilton report now?
 

xenolith

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2000
1,588
0
76
Just wondering...

If the President of the United States fails to effectively protect and defend our borders against the illegal immigration/invasion of foreign bodies/enemies, is that impeachable?

Last I checked, the President is charged with the Constitutional duty to protect and defend this country and its citizenry against invasion. So yes... I think that it is impeachable.

/Just wondering...

 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: xenolith
Just wondering...

If the President of the United States fails to effectively protect and defend our borders against the illegal immigration/invasion of foreign bodies/enemies, is that impeachable?

Last I checked, the President is charged with the Constitutional duty to protect and defend this country and its citizenry against invasion. So yes... I think that it is impeachable.

/Just wondering...
:disgust: You fail your citizenship test.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. (So help me God)

Even if it were the case that the president swears an oath to defend the citizenry against invasion, we should have impeached every president in the 20th century. Yes it's a problem, but come on....

McKinney is an attention whore.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: xenolith
Just wondering...

If the President of the United States fails to effectively protect and defend our borders against the illegal immigration/invasion of foreign bodies/enemies, is that impeachable?

Last I checked, the President is charged with the Constitutional duty to protect and defend this country and its citizenry against invasion. So yes... I think that it is impeachable.

/Just wondering...
:disgust: You fail your citizenship test.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. (So help me God)

Even if it were the case that the president swears an oath to defend the citizenry against invasion, we should have impeached every president in the 20th century. Yes it's a problem, but come on....

McKinney is an attention whore.


key words in that swearing in that protect Bush from any impeachment or wrongdoing "to the best of my ability" ... "he is doing a pretty good job for a retarded person" ;)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
It makes the repubs look realy bad if this gets dropped now, and then in january another one gets passed and bush gets impeached
 

bloodugly

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2004
1,187
0
0
Bush is quite possibly one of the worst presidents ever. He can hardly say anything at all off the top of his head without sounding like a moron. It saddens me that someone like this can get elected.....twice. I don't have to totally agree with a president, but I'd at least like them not to be a moron.
 

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
I'm having a hard time understanding why Clinton was impeached for a personal affair, and with all that Bush has done, lying, screwing up, misleading us, he is still President.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Enig101
I'm having a hard time understanding why Clinton was impeached for a personal affair, and with all that Bush has done, lying, screwing up, misleading us, he is still President.

Probably because nobody has actual proof that Bush lied/misled on purpose. Just more tin foil hat theory.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
"Probably because nobody has actual proof that Bush lied/misled on purpose. Just more tin foil hat theory."

Look in the mirror to see that tinfoil hat... Unlike Clinton, Bush has enjoyed a compliant Congress, his own party having a majority in both houses...

Things change, however...
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
599
126
Bush is done in two years. The Democrat Party Powers will NEVER let an impeachment happen.

They were elected to make positive changes.


If they waste the next two years going after Bush, Im willing to wager that Republicans get everything back in 2008.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Enig101
I'm having a hard time understanding why Clinton was impeached for a personal affair, and with all that Bush has done, lying, screwing up, misleading us, he is still President.

Probably because nobody has actual proof that Bush lied/misled on purpose. Just more tin foil hat theory.

More like the GOP having control of Congress and no motivation to investigate anything, anywhere, anyhow by anyone. I guarantee that during the next two years of the Dems controlling Congress, we will see an investigation that reveals an impeachable offense.

[If Alchemize is lurking ... I've got $20 with your name on it! Heh, heh. :)]

Back OT however, McKinney is a bit of a loon, and with Dems trying to stick to the middle of the road and appear moderate, she's a liability for sure.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Bush is done in two years. The Democrat Party Powers will NEVER let an impeachment happen.

They were elected to make positive changes.


If they waste the next two years going after Bush, Im willing to wager that Republicans get everything back in 2008.

worked for the repubs when clinton was pres
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
McKinney's impeachment bill is on a fast track to nowhere---a stunt and nothing else. But it does plant a seed.

We may well see a real impeachment before Bush's term is done---with a plethora of evidence that Bush has been knowingly running roughshod over the constitution---and over 750 laws self-admitted--some of which GWB himself signed.

It will largely depend on GWB---who could get real stubborn while stuck on stupid---or do a dictators favorite stunt and just try to dissolve the legislative branch---forcing a showdown---and an impeachment.---while people like Alberto Gonzales can clothe 1984 like arguments in showy clothing while sayings black is really white---those arguments won't last five minutes in a real court.

While it took almost a year and a half to get a slam dunk case that Nixon was obstructing justice, GWB has already made a slam dunk case that he is violating the constitution.---and has placed the noose over his own neck---the question is who will grab the end of the rope and pull?
 

marvdmartian

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2002
5,444
27
91
You must have missed Nancy Pelosi's comment that the democratically controlled congress will NOT pursue an impeachment of the President.

Let's face it......if the democrats don't do anything but positive things over the next couple years, they face the very real possibility of losing control of the congress again. Impeaching the president now would simply look petty, and would reflect badly on them. And besides..... what would it really accomplish? Even if they brought criminal charges again Bush, don't you think that we'd just see a repeat of the departure from office of Richard Nixon?? I swear, the ink wasn't even dry on his pardon when he stepped aboard the jet that took him back to California!!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
If the Dems can actually remove Bush, then Cheney will assume control.

And he will select his VP. More than likely such a selection would be to generate a front-runner for the Repubs in '08.

Giving them an extra year head start on grooming the successor.

Impeaching & convicting Bush is not in the Dem party best interests.
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
That b*tch is an idiot. She is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with this country and represents her race in the worst possible light
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Pelosi's remarks need to be taken in context. No, the basic objective is *not* impeachment, but there obviously will be congressional hearings on a lot of issues. If truly egregious evidence comes to light, Dems will have little choice but to proceed in that direction- their base wouldn't sit still for anything less. So far, Bush allies in Congress have prevented any meaningful efforts- they simply can't do so with the Dems in control...

I'd offer that if Bush goes down, Cheney will, too... If anything, there's probably stronger cause to impeach Cheney than Bush...

Yeh, sure, McKinney's bill of impeachment is entirely symbolic, but then, so are a lot of other bills, as well...
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If the Dems can actually remove Bush, then Cheney will assume control.

And he will select his VP. More than likely such a selection would be to generate a front-runner for the Repubs in '08.

Giving them an extra year head start on grooming the successor.

Impeaching & convicting Bush is not in the Dem party best interests.

The Dems' should have at least a very good to excelent chance of coming up with enough damaging evidence to make the next presidential election interesting. I would think (hope anyway) an investigation of Bush and Cheney is in order and would put another nice nail in the coffin of the NeoCons that have been screwing this country up for their own gain.

At least that's my opinion.
 

StepUp

Senior member
May 12, 2004
651
0
76
I think as elected officials, they should be looking out for what's best for the people, not the party. /end utopia
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Enig101
I'm having a hard time understanding why Clinton was impeached for a personal affair, and with all that Bush has done, lying, screwing up, misleading us, he is still President.
First, it's important to understand that the word, impeachment means an accusation, not a conviction.

Clinton was not impeached for having a personal affair. He was impeached for the crime of purjury as a result of allegations that he lied during grand jury testimony regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and for obstruction of justice in his actions during the investigation of his grand jury testimony. He was tried by the Senate, but he was NOT convicted.

That's not a statement of support for Clinton's actions or about the merits of the proceedings. It's just a statement of the facts.

Getting back to Bush and his gang of thugs, I think a good case can be made to charge him and the entire administration with several felonies, including murder and numerous abuses of office and assaults on the Constitutional rights of American citizens under color of authority.
Under color of authority is a legal phrase used in the United States indicating a person is claiming or implying the acts he or she is committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power.

The phrase can refer to lawful or unlawful acts. The statutes that define what powers police officers can exercise in the course of their duty will often state the officer must be acting "under the color of authority." On the other hand, charges of police brutality will often include the formal charge of assault "under color of authority," as they did in the Rodney King case.
Under one definition of murder, a person who recklessly engages in conduct or the commision of acts under circumstances showing reckless disregard or depraved indifference to human life which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes the death of that person.

By definition, war includes the foreseeable possiblity, and in fact, the certainty, of the deaths of some of those sent into battle. To date, the war in Iraq has cost over 2,900 American lives (that we know about) and tens (and possibly hundreds) of thousands of other deaths to innocent civilians, and the end of this carnage is not in sight.

There are legitimate reasons to take a nation to war, but when the President and his administration start such a war, and that war is elective, not defensive in response to an attack, and every reason given to the citizens of the nation for starting that war is based entirely on lies, it is not unreasonable to view their actions as "reckless disregard or depraved indifference to human life" which, in fact, created the grave risk of death to others and did, infact, cause those deaths.

I could rummage through probably hundreds of threads on this forum about the Bushwhackos' abuses of the Constitutional rights of American citizens, most notably warrantless domestic spying, denying citizens of the right of habeus corpus and holding citizens without access to legal defense cousel, so there's no need to divert the discussion by rehashing the details. For discussion, it's enough just to note that there's plenty of reason to believe many members this administration have commited hundreds of felonies under their own self-agrandizing delusions of the color of authority of their offices.

Of course, that's before we get to their international crimes, including the use of torture at secret sites in other countries in violation of international laws and treaties.

Whether they are impeached during their term of office, or whether they face criminal charges when they leave, I think it's extremely important that their crimes are documented so that they are not swept under the carpet or glossed over in history by the passage of time.

If they are convicted, I think it would be appropriate to sentence them to some number of years at the lovely downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free enforced daily access to the exciting and ever popular waterboard ride.